On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 09:49:54PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > Hi, > > > 1) preempt (and other -RT features ?) are still too broken for enabling in > > the > > main flavours. > > Yes, I think it's too large a patch to include unconditionally into > mainline Debian kernel.
A patch ? What exactly are you speaking about ? I was talking about preempt, which is now part of the mainline 2.6 tree, but not enabled by default. > > 2) the kernel team has not the ressources to track these preempt flavours, > > and > > the (load of) additional bug report they will create. > > > 3) it is now relatively easy to add preempt flavours, and from a technically > > packaging infrastructure this would be a no brainer. > > > > So, given this, if the support of these -RT kernels will be handled only by > > the existing kernel team, then there is no way we want to add those, but on > > the other hand, if there is additional ressources added to the kernel team > > to > > handle those flavours and the accompanying bug reports, we would be willing > > to > > add a few select flavours. I guess those would be the i386, amd64, and > > powerpc > > (at least the powerpcs and powerpc64 flavours, do we really need to care > > about > > 32bit smp systems for this ?). > > I think we'll have a lot of problems with support SMP userland let > alone kernel for -RT, so that will probably need some work. Euh, powerpc64 is smp by default, and if i remember well, preempt is actually easier to deal with in a smp-friendly case. > My current plan is to maintain the -RT variant with guys working with > debian-multimedia, so yes, this means new members joining in to > debian-kernel team to look after bugs specific to -RT variants. Cool, then. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
