Re: ia64 added to svn
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 01:47:56PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:24:24AM +0900, Horms wrote:
[split]
> > Another issue I would like to see addressed at some stage,
> > though it isn't really a policy issue, is what port/kernel version
> > we support. By kernel version I mean 2.4 and 2.6. For instance
> > the recent discussion of Bug#257001 suggets that m68k may be
> > a candidate for not having a 2.4 kernel that is supported by this team
>
> Well, do they have a 2.6 kernel then ? I suppose not, and that means only a
> 2.2 kernel.
Only having a 2.2 doesn't seem very satisfactory to me.
However, given that no one from the debian-68k list has responded to my
previous message about this, I am not sure how to move forward.
> I am myself doubtfull about 2.4 powerpc kernels, apart from the discover
> issue, all would be nice and fine in 2.6 kernels. And i doubt it is making
> much sense to have powerpc/apus support in both 2.4 and 2.6 as it doesn't even
> work.
What I was really asking is, do we have a mechanism to
officially say "2.4 is not supported on achitecture X, Y, Z".
Ditto for 2.2 and 2.6.
> > (note I didn't say it won't, just that it is a possibility that is
> > being discussed). I am concerned that in some cases there
> > is just too little interest and too much work to make the package
> > maintainable. Especially as in the case of the kernel one
> > really needs access to the hardware to test the kernel -
> > I can rebuild an m68k kernel on crest (very slowly) but
> > I can't test it to see if it works.
>
> Yes, so policy would be for those with the hardware to make the work. Helped
> by us naturally. Nothing else really makes much sense.
Agreed. We need to find these people. To do testing etc...
I am however, not convinced that everyone needs access to the
tree. That said, I don't have particularly strong feelings
either way.
--
Horms
Reply to: