Re: stable with 2.2.11 (was Re: Stable release management)
On Fri, Aug 20, 1999 at 12:40:34PM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> The big unknown for a linux 2.2 and slink is other architectures.
> Personally, I have my doubts that the linux 2.2 kernel is more robust
> and stable than 2.0 for non-i386 architectures. Anyhow, hopefully we
> will allow the architecture team make their own determination whether
> to include 2.2 or not. Ideally, the slink update (call it
> 2.1-linux-2.2) would be agnostic about whether you're running 2.0 or
> 2.2, i.e., support both kernels.
This is completely untrue. In fact the slink sparc release was with a
2.2.1 kernel _because_ it was more stable than the 2.0.x kernels for this
architecture. The 2.2 series of kernels are synced better with the ports
and as such are much more stable for non-i386 than the 2.0 kernels.
> Next week, I will take an empty disk partiton I have and install a
> slink/sparc system there so I can help with the porting. But someone
> really needs to start asking around on the other porters, trying to
> get those folks to join this list and give impressions about our
> plans.
Most of the porters already know what's going on. There are a few port
specific things that need to be done for each arch, and I'm pretty sure
that each of them knows what they are.
In case you want to know, right now I plan on trying to push getting the
2.1.2 glibc into the sparc/slink re-release simply because the 2.1pre
(2.0.105) is not as stable, and actually compiles binaries that aren't
binary compatible with other sparc distributions. I also want to get some
newer kernels (the 2.2.1's are lacking in a few options) and better
sparc64 documentation. IMO, we didn't brag about our ability to install on
ultrasparc's enough on the last release (not at all in the official press
release, iirc), which Steve Dunham(it was you, right?) worked very hard on
supporting at the last few minutes before release.
The non-i386 archs will probably have more "wants" for this slink
re-rerelease than i386 will, more so because of stability than security.
Ben
Reply to: