Re: ia64 added to svn
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 02:30:50PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 09:20:22PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> > 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.
>
> We remove the package from the archive ? I think that the right way for making
> this claim is to see what debian-installer installs by default, or to have a
> kernel-image-<port> which points at the default kernel.
Should the Architecture of kernel source packages be set accordinly too?
I suspect not.
--
Horms
Reply to: