[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge

On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:48:00PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 05:35:16PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> >   Based on discussions on the debian-kernel list[1], I'd like to propose
> > that we use 2.4.27 as the 2.4 kernel for all architectures with 2.4 kernels
> > in sarge.  The strongest arguments for 2.4.27, as opposed to 2.4.26 were noted
> > by tbm [3].
> >   All 2.4 architectures have 2.4.27 kernel images built.  alpha, mips
> > and s390 have 2.4.27 images already in sarge.  hppa, m68k, i386, ia64,
> > and mips have images available in sid.  arm, powerpc, and sparc have images
> > awaiting approval in the NEW queue.  
> >   linux-kernel-di is at 2.4.26 for alpha, sparc, s390, m68k, and i386.  These
> > packages will need to be updated, and will need to go through the NEW queue.
> > linux-kernel-di for arm, hppa and powerpc are on 2.4.25, so will also need to
> > be updated.  ia64, mips and mipsel already have 2.4.27 linux-kernel-di
> > packages.
> >   Various tasks are in a hold pattern until this decision is made (ensuring
> > that d-i uses the proper kernel, removal of other kernel packages from
> > sarge, rebuilding of some packages to fix build-dep issues[4]), so I'd
> > like to uncover any problems with this proposal quickly.
> Because this gives us a shot at having all architectures on the same
> version for sarge (where 2.4.26 does not due to arm), I agree that this
> is the way to go.
> I should be able to get linux-kernel-di-alpha done and uploaded by
> Monday.
> Sven, how far out are the 2.4.27 powerpc debs?  If these aren't

Well, i have something that may work, only one hunk doesn't apply correctly,
which means maybe a broken rivafb. I asked benh to have a look at it, but when
he hears 2.4, he goes away running. This should be no major problem though,
since offb would always work for pmac owners, and they should use 2.6 in any

> receiving enough attention because 2.6 is such a priority, I think we
> need to seriously consider dropping the 2.4 kernels completely for
> powerpc instead of giving them half-hearted support that will delay the
> release.

No, 2.4 has to stay, since there are still a few cases where 2.6 has some
trouble, in particular with some oldworld pmacs. In the major cases, 2.6.8 is
the way to go, now that the CD/DVD burning problems seem to be solved (i still
cannot burn RW media though, but that may not be kernel related).


Sven Luther

Reply to: