On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 02:06:46PM +0800, John Summerfield wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: > > >> 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 > >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. > > > > > > > > All here who have 2.4 and 2.6 kernels on ppc should try disk speed tests > with hdparm: I found my new Athlon (well the mobo's new, CPU's not) is > 30% faster with the 2.4 kernel.
Have you reported a bug report on this ? And with which 2.6 kernel was it ? > If something like this is true of ppc too, you wouldn't want to drop 2.4 > kernels. Well, it should be fixed instead. None of upstream (all the linux-ppc devleopers) have any interest left for 2.4, so there is really no sane way to keep the support going unless we do it all ourselves. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
