Hi, I've been discussing lately on #d-kernel about the fate of 2.4 hppa kernel packages. Here is a brief summary of the issue: I received a bugreport (#289590) because 2.4.27 package FTBFS, and that's the result of: 1) a (imho) very invasive and massive Debian patchset that conflicts with 2) a huge, dirty and no longer maintained parisc 2.4 diff to the pristine kernel. In other words, I'm up to the point where it begins to be unreasonably complicated to maintain a 2.4 Debian package because OTOH we (parisc-linux kernel hackers) no longer maintain our 2.4 repository and OTOH the 2.4 parisc port has always been nothing but a big hack to the 2.4 pristine source. Indeed, we never merged upstream because in order to get things somehow working we've touched many arch-indep files in a dirty and hacky way, making the changes unsuitable for upstream inclusion. Since the parisc-linux diff is taken against a snapshot of the pristine kernel tree. Tailoring it to make it apply fine on a Debian patched kernel is quite a PITA (the parisc patch is roughly 800k). Now comes the question of the meaning of having a debian package for a no longer supported _UPSTREAM_ kernel. We (parisc hackers) put all our efforts in 2.6 and strongly advise everyone to use 2.6. We are no longer maintaining 2.4 (last update to our tree is several months old, and 2.4.28 merge is not on the todo list). I've been told by Joey Hess that 2.6 support for d-i is mostly there, so I'd like to know what would eventually raise against dropping 2.4 package in the very near future (ie: before sarge releases). TIA, Thibaut VARENE The PA/Linux ESIEE Team http://www.pateam.org/ PS: please CC me in answers.
Attachment:
pgpBnXk5UYBw6.pgp
Description: PGP signature