On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 06:22:32PM -0700, dann frazier wrote: > I'm trying to decide what I want to do about the ia64 kernel ABI. I > rev'd it from -2 (currently in sarge) to -3 to turn off PREEMPT > (prevents at least one user triggerable oops). This seemed convenient, > since the k-s-2.6.8-14 had its own ABI change. > Well, turns out this was a bad idea - we've decided to revert the ABI > change from the kernel-source, and the ia64 images are blocked from > sarge because of it. > Is it feasible (or even a good idea) to revert this ABI change? The > only problem I can come up with is that sid systems that installed the > -2 ABI version and the -3 ABI version won't use -2 as a default kernel > after the upgrade. That seems acceptable since after all, this is sid, > and once we do the pending ABI roll, it will be -3 once again. And, I'd > like for sarge users to be able to test new uploads. We want to keep any of these kernel updates from reaching testing before sarge release, unless there's agreement that we should do a full update (including revision of the d-i kernel udebs). Kernels also aren't affected by the autobuilder problems with t-p-u right now, so that option is open for anything that does need to be uploaded for sarge. I'd say there's no reason not to play with longshot-for-sarge kernel changes in unstable. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature