On Aug 25, Horms <horms@debian.org> wrote: > There are some architectures where 2.4 is required, its > because of these that it seems that we are stuck with 2.4 for Etch. > alpha (installer), m68k (2.6 only works on amiga), s390 (installer), > mips, mipsel What does "installer" mean? IIRC SuSE supports s390 with 2.6 kernels. Also, exactly how is 2.6 broken for mips and mipsel? From a quick google search it looks like it's actively developed and even commercially supported. > There are some architectures, like i386, which are pretty well > maintained upstream for 2.4, so it seems reasonable to keep them, It's not important how they are maintained now, but how they will be in two years. > as we need 2.4 because of the first group, and its not a whole lot of > extra effort - if it is lets get rid of them. I'm aware of the udev > issue, I'm happy for that to be a catalyst for canning 2.4 where > possible. But what about the arches that need 2.4. Does that mean > we have to backport udev anyway? Not plausible, it depends on sysfs and the drivers core. -- ciao, Marco
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature