On Sun, Jul 04, 2004 at 10:31:06AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 04, 2004 at 10:32:21AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > This means that 2.6 could be made the default on :
> >
> > alpha, i386, ia64, powerpc and sparc64 (mmm, do we have sparc64
> > kernels ?) and amd64. And the de
On Sun, Jul 04, 2004 at 10:32:21AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>> This means that 2.6 could be made the default on :
>> alpha, i386, ia64, powerpc and sparc64 (mmm, do we have sparc64
>> kernels ?) and amd64. And the default per subarch on some of the others.
>> I would go for it, but am under t
On Sun, Jul 04, 2004 at 10:32:21AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> This means that 2.6 could be made the default on :
>
> alpha, i386, ia64, powerpc and sparc64 (mmm, do we have sparc64
> kernels ?) and amd64. And the default per subarch on some of the others.
>
> I would go for it, but am under
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 07:12:54PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 12:31:52PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > * Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-27 17:29]:
> > > There's a few reports against 2.4 kernel that are fixed in 2.6 and
> > > are unlikely to get i
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 08:01:20PM +0200, Thibaut VARENE wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 19:12:54 +0200
> Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > parisc:
> > seems to be fine in general but IIRC some features are still
> > missing
>
> Wrong. Unless you define SMP as "some features"
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 19:12:54 +0200
Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> parisc:
> seems to be fine in general but IIRC some features are still
> missing
Wrong. Unless you define SMP as "some features".
parisc is _not ready_ to move to 2.6.
--
Thibaut VARENE
The PA/Linux ESI
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 12:31:52PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-27 17:29]:
> > 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 the
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 12:31:52PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-27 17:29]:
> > 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 the
* Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-27 17:29]:
> 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?
Is there any chance of those fixes being backported to 2.4
* Marc Haber ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040627 17:40]:
> 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
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?
I'd leave them open, tagged wontfix, as a reference
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?
12 matches
Mail list logo
