Re: Question regarding kernel policy: Why ext2 as module?]
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 01:46:32PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 01:04:08PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 12:32:15PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 10:48:57PM +1000, Andree Leidenfrost wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 18:34, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 08:15:56AM +1000, Andree Leidenfrost wrote:
> > > > > > As an aftertought: Im asking this because I am after a method that will
> > > > > > work for *all* kernels in Debian not just 2.6.6. Rather than trying them
> > > > > > all out I was hoping you could tell me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > AFAIK debian 2.4 has not initramfs support.
> > > > >
> > > > Right. Thanks for letting me know.
> > > >
> > > > I've done more testing and it looks like 2.6.6 and 2.6.7 are fine but
> > > > prior 2.6 kernels are not. I presume they don't have the patch applied
> > > > that fixes the root parameter issue (cf. the message link I gave
> > > > earlier). Will this be fixed you think or will older 2.6 kernels maybe
> > > > be pulled from the archive prior to the Sarge release?
> > > >
> > >
> > > We will release probable 2.6.7 only if every arch will be ok with that.
> >
> > Huh ? This seems ridicoulous. 2.6.7 will be the default powerpc kernel, and i
> > have no intention of supporting older 2.4 or 2.6 kernels. The same goes for
> > both Jens and hch, not to speak with most of powerpc upstream, so ...
> >
>
> Sorry, bad statement, I mean 2.6.7 will be the 2.6 flavor released for
> all archs where it is ok (i.e. no RCs) and currently built. E.g. alpha has not
> kernel-image-2.6.7 source yet, from madison.
Ok, yes, seems reasonable now.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: