On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 09:41:46PM +0000, Robert Millan wrote: > El 2 de febrer de 2012 18:54, Aurelien Jarno <aurel...@aurel32.net> ha escrit: > >> We need the rebuild for ABI transition anyway, so it's no harm to > >> queue it right away. > >> > > > > Does it mean that after a rebuild, it won't work anymore with a kernel > > 8.x? > > Probably. After several hours I've given up trying to make userland > compatible with both kernels. Specifically with CAM, the required > patch would be very intrusive (a struct is modified carelessly, which > would require duplicating the struct, all structs that include it, and > versioning in all the functions that rely on any of that). If someone > volunteers feel free to supply a patch, but IMHO with manpower being > so scarce this is a dead end. >
The problem there is that given that all 9.x packages have been already pushed to the archive with ABI changes and so on, we *must* switch the default kernel for wheezy to 9.x. I don't say it's a bad decision, but I would have prefer to have some discussion about, it including the possible consequences of such a choice, instead of getting to the point of not having any other choice. Now we have no choice than making a real plan for switching to 9.x kernel: - We have to make sure users are using wheezy/sid with a 9.x kernel. - We have to provide an upgrade path for users, including the best moment to switch from one kernel to another in the release notes. - The build daemons are going to stay with the 8.1 kernel up to the release of wheezy. Will it work? Sometimes after they are going to switch to a 9.x kernel, but they should still be able to build squeeze packages. Will it work? Who wants to work on addressing these points? -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120205105029.gc7...@ohm.aurel32.net
