Theodore Ts'o wrote: > Two questions.... first of all, this is a testing/unstable bug, > right? I had a vague memory from a LCA 2006 presentation that we were > going to be desupporting the 2.4 kernel, or did I get that wrong? Not > that this means we shouldn't fix the bug, but I'm wondering whether > this should really be considered an RC bug or not; how many people are > still using a 2.4 kernel on testing/unstable, and is that a supported > configuration. I would have at thought this was at best an > "important" or "normal" bug. The answer to this question would > basically affect whether or not I try to upload something right away, > or after I finish a few other changes currently on deck and can afford > to wait a few days.
The kernel team has stated that they plan to drop 2.4 kernels before etch releases, but it's currently still in the archive, and we will still need to support upgrades from stable. There are also still some architectures that d-i only supports with the 2.4 kernel. > Secondly, could you try this out since you obviously have a 2.4 system > handy? What it does is avoid setting LD_ASSUME_KERNEL at all if the > script is currently running on a 2.4 kernel. That should make the > script more robust, for someone who is purely running 2.4, and glibc > changes the minimum kernel version again. It would only set > LD_ASSUME_KERNEL in the presumably rare case where you are running a > 2.6 kernel, and for some reason want to install and run mkinitrd on a > 2.4 kernel. IIRC, that was the scenario that needed the > LD_ASSUME_KERNEL environment variable in the first place, so we might > as well restrict it to that. Yes, this will work just as well. LD_ASSUME_KERNEL is only needed to avoid ldd seeing tls libraries, which will not be used anyway if 2.4 is running. -- see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
