On Fri, Aug 20, 1999 at 12:57:45PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> 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.
Sorry to say that your comment is only partially true ;-)
The 2.2.1 kernel was added to the slink sparc release for two reasons:
* sun4u (Ultra) support was only usable with > 2.1.x kernels
* 2.0.35 had a slowdown kernel bug on some sparc cpu models which was
only fixed in 2.1.x kernels
On my Sparcstation10 2.0.35 was a perfectly stable kernel. Steve Dunham
pushed 2.2.1 in to support the sun4u architecture and we weren't sure
if it would work out well on all sparc cpu's because it was still brand
new stuff when we released slink ;-)
> 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.
Right. Nowadays most architectures are merged pretty well in 2.2.x
>
> > 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.
Could you elaborate in which areas 2.0.105 is unstable ? I'd be pretty
hesistant to upgrade glibc without some striking arguments (binary
compatibility with other distributions is a somewhat weak argument as
there's only RedHat in the sparc arena and RH5.2 was based on glibc2.0
which is incompatible by design and RH6.0 is glibc2.1 which should be
mostly compatible to 2.0.105). Besides we need to test first if there's
a working upgrade path for 2.0.35 users when upgrading to glibc2.1.2. Last
time I checked a 2.2.x kernel was a prerequiste for upgrading glibc2.1
which should be fixed (the upgrade should be possible with a 2.0.35 kernel).
> 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.
Right. Note 'the last few minutes'. Steve worked very hard and produced a
brilliantly working Ultra support but back at release time we didn't know
how well it would work out. Therefore it was a sensible decision.
Heck we didn't even know how well the whole sparc release would work out.
All of the parts just fell in place in the last minutes: Eric's bootdisks,
Steve's work on X, egcs64, binutils, etc., my tweaking of lots of source
packages to compile with glibc2.1 on sparc, ...
>
> The non-i386 archs will probably have more "wants" for this slink
> re-rerelease than i386 will, more so because of stability than security.
Sparc needs an updated egcs and egcs64 package (important bug fixes,
miscompilation of 2.2.x kernels) and a
newer kernel (although 2.2.9 should be fine). Additionally I would like to
sync the source packages in the update, sparc has got a few .1 packages
which can't be build from the corresponding source packages without a
patch (the patches weren't included by the maintainers in time for the
release). The Xsun24 should be updated (Steve incorporated the relevant
patches in the potato package) because the Creator graphics board support
is sooooooooo slow in slink.
That's my wishlist ;-)
Greetings,
Christian
--
Christian Meder, email: meder@isr.uni-stuttgart.de
What's the railroad to me ?
I never go to see
Where it ends.
It fills a few hollows,
And makes banks for the swallows,
It sets the sand a-blowing,
And the blackberries a-growing.
(Henry David Thoreau)