On Wed, 2004-06-30 at 03:51, Sven Luther wrote: > Hello, > > Well, nobody seemed to care or comment on this, so let's take this to a > wider audience. > > Christoph has recently told me that he doesn't care about 2.4, and even > benh has mentioned to me that 2.4 support for powerpc will be going away > in the near term (well, not the eact words, but you get my meaning). And > i guess that Jens also is only interested on 2.6 kernels, even though he > is comaintainer of the 2.4 kernels too.
Well... That isn't really what I said ;) What I said is that I don't have time to actively maintain the PowerMac support in 2.4, that is make it evolve & support newer machines. That doesn't mean that PPC will be going away from 2.4 ;) > So, i am seriously considering dropping all 2.4 powerpc kernels, and > going with 2.6 only, and would like to get feedback both from > debian-kernel as well as debian-powerpc, feedback i didn't get in the > past. > > Ah, and i am seriously considering dropping support for apus from the > kernels (and thus debian-installer). I believe that they are only a > handfull of apus users left, and those are happily running self built > 2.2 kernels. Furthermore, i have some evidence that not only where the > debian apus kernels never tried on apus, but also that there is big > chance they don't even work. I don't have apus hardware anymore, so ... > > So, please feedback is welcome. > > Friendly, > > Sven Luther > > On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 09:55:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 05:29:38PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > There's a few reports against 2.4 kernel that are fixed in 2.6 and are > > > unlikely to get in 2.4 every (Examples: #146956 or #130217). How should > > > we deal with them in the BTS? > > > > The real question here is to ask ourselves what is our option for the > > sarge release. Will we release with 2.4 as default, which is the track > > we are on right now, or will we release with 2.6 as default, and keep > > 2.4 about only as backup in case there is a real problem with 2.4. > > > > There are both advantages and problems in going with 2.6 : > > > > advantage: it is the future, has some features and fixes which will > > not be backported to 2.4, and moreover many of our new kernel team > > have no interest whatsoever for 2.4, which includes benh and Christoph > > among others. > > > > problems: not all architectures support 2.6 yet (well, most of them do > > not), and moreover, our userland has probably not been fully tested > > with 2.6 all that much. > > > > So, the real question, for those arches which do support 2.6, and if > > those bug reports you mention are problems only on those arches where > > 2.6 is supported, and if we decide to go for 2.6, then it should be ok > > to mark those bugs as wontfix, and put a note that it is fixed in 2.6. > > > > If on the other hand we decide to go with 2.4 by default, or those bugs > > affect arches which are not ready to go with 2.6, then not only it is > > not ok to close them (even if our new kernel team doesn't care for 2.4), > > but we should either backport the fix, or find another way to close it > > before the sarge release. > > > > Now, about going with 2.6, i personnally would maybe like to go with 2.6 > > eclusively for all the powerpc subarches, altough i am not entirely sure > > we are ready for this. For this to happen we need to achieve the > > following : > > > > Have a kernel bootable on all subarches : > > > > -> yaboot using newworld pmac & chrp-rs6k : Ok, but need testing on > > chrp-rs6k > > -> mkvmlinuz generated chrp : Need to find a solution for the > > generation of the vmlinuz image, should be easy, once we agree on a > > way to go. > > -> oldworld pmac : We need to shrink the size of the kernel so it > > fits on a miboot floppy and test it. This should be best achieved by > > modularizing the pmac-ide driver, and other pmac stuff which could > > be modularized. Benh said he scarcely has time for it, and Christoph > > promised he would have a look. > > -> prep : renamed pplus in the kernel code. We need to add mkvmlinuz > > code for this one, not sure about the others, we did not support > > them, but it should be possible to add support to mkvmlinuz easily > > enough. Testing on those subarches is needed though. > > -> apus : Well, a 2.6 port could be done and tested, using a > > conditionally applied patch or something such, or merging the > > patches. That said, since there are at most 5-10 users left, and > > those are using their own kernels, maybe we should drop kernel > > support for them. > > > > Another point would be to test the 2.6 debian-installer on all those > > subarches, and fi the problems if they appear. > > > > If all this does happen before the sarge release, and if the userland > > issues are solved, then i would strongly recomend going for 2.6 for > > powerpc at least, especially as the members of the debian kernel team > > with interest in powerpc care very little about 2.4 kernels. > > > > Friendly, > > > > Sven Luther > > > > > > > > > -- > > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > -- > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
