Re: 2.4 & 2.6 kernels, should sarge be 2.6 only at least for powerpc ?
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 07:04:22PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 09:55:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 05:29:38PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > There's a few reports against 2.4 kernel that are fixed in 2.6 and are
> > > unlikely to get in 2.4 every (Examples: #146956 or #130217). How should
> > > we deal with them in the BTS?
> >
> > The real question here is to ask ourselves what is our option for the
> > sarge release. Will we release with 2.4 as default, which is the track
> > we are on right now, or will we release with 2.6 as default, and keep
> > 2.4 about only as backup in case there is a real problem with 2.4.
>
> While this is an important question (and I'll comment more on it below)
> it's pretty much irrelevant to the kind of bugs I was thinking about
> when writing this mail. I was only thinking about bugs which are
> extremly hard to fix in 2.4 and thus are a) a lot of work and b) don't
> haev much of a chance upstream, like the removal of the 32bit groups
> limit. For other reported bugs that require less work I wouldn't just
> declare them wontfix as long as the 2.4 kernels are considered supported
> in 2.4.
Even in those cases, it is ok to mark those bugs wontfix and a note that
2.6 solves it, but not ok to close them until the packages are removed
from the archive.
> > -> oldworld pmac : We need to shrink the size of the kernel so it
> > fits on a miboot floppy and test it. This should be best achieved by
> > modularizing the pmac-ide driver, and other pmac stuff which could
> > be modularized. Benh said he scarcely has time for it, and Christoph
> > promised he would have a look.
>
> I've done a patch but it doesn't work. I'll try to investigate it
> further soon.
Cool. There is also a pmac floppy driver which is builtin, and i suppose
almost nobody ever travels that code path.
> > -> apus : Well, a 2.6 port could be done and tested, using a
> > conditionally applied patch or something such, or merging the
> > patches. That said, since there are at most 5-10 users left, and
> > those are using their own kernels, maybe we should drop kernel
> > support for them.
>
> What's the status of apus on 2.6? I saw Roman posting patches for apus
> on linuxppc-dev and IIRC they got applied. Are there more than those
> patches required? What's the status of apus for recent 2.4.x?
Don't know what the exact status is. I believe that the status of apus
on 2.6 is better than the status on 2.4 (and i heard rumors that 2.4
kernels are broken anyway since 2.4.19 or something such and won't
boot). The apus/amiga specific driver support is less widespread,
meaning there are some drivers which are not yet forward ported. But an
inquiry on the apus mailing list also held response from Roman that the
2.6 would have a better chance than 2.4, if i remember well, it was some
month ago already. There is a CVS tree at the sourceforge apus project
you can look at.
Now, the main problem is that i believe the apus comunity is down to
around a handfull of users (Well, i know of 3 or so who responded to my
mails on the apus-dev lists, and i know that there were around 10000
boards manufactured back then, and a non-negligible part of those are
dead today).
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: