Re: 2.4 & 2.6 kernels, should sarge be 2.6 only at least for powerpc ?
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 09:53:50AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:51:22 +0200,
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > So, i am seriously considering dropping all 2.4 powerpc kernels, and
> > going with 2.6 only, and would like to get feedback both from
> > debian-kernel as well as debian-powerpc, feedback i didn't get in the
> > past.
> >
> > Ah, and i am seriously considering dropping support for apus from the
> > kernels (and thus debian-installer). I believe that they are only a
> > handfull of apus users left, and those are happily running self built
> > 2.2 kernels. Furthermore, i have some evidence that not only where the
> > debian apus kernels never tried on apus, but also that there is big
> > chance they don't even work. I don't have apus hardware anymore, so ...
>
> The transition 2.4 -> 2.6 is generally good idea.
Cool.
> However, did you confirm that various packages is 2.6 ready? For
Nope, which is why i asked for discussion on this topic. I personally
run only 2.6, and i believe this is already the case for a majority of
powerpc users though. But thanks for your input. Also, i don't exactly
follow you on the the FTBFS mentioned below, since the glibc is using
2.6 headers anyway since some time now, and all the 2.6 related FTFBS
bugs we were going to run against we already did. I may be missing
something though.
> example video/console related package and so on. I don't want to see
video/console ? You mean, like fbset and various things that depend on
the fbdev device ? We would have to give them a try, thanks for the
hint. I know the fbdev layer was rewritten, but does it really affect
userland ?
> a lot of FTBFS bugs that say: "PPC has only 2.6 kernel, and this
Well, there will always be the 2.4 kernel, but 2.6 would be the default.
> package is not usable!" before releasing sarge. Testing one kernel is
> easy; testing various packages is hard.
Yep, which is why we should move to 2.6 as default as soon as possible.
Now, if only the 2.6.7 kernel would finally escape the NEW queue, but
ftp-masters are mute about this, as usual. This is going to be a real
problem.
> Unfortunatelly sarge release schedule is not decided yet, but I fear
> this transition makes something damage for releasing sarge (including
> d-i). Is this well tested? Except for this issue, I welcome your
> decision.
Yep, i am not entirely sure that userland is really ready, which is my
only point of hesitation at this time, and i would like to have a help
in tracking down possible issues. But again it is not as if 2.4 is going
away, so if it doesn't work out, we can always return to 2.4 before the
release.
Another issue would be the various kernel module package which may not
be 2.6 ready.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: