On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 03:29:49PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * dann frazier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060526 15:14]: > > On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:24:52PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 11:20:38PM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote: > > > > need some further discussion among the m68k folks... does this also mean > > > > that an etch installation will require a 2.6 kernel to run on the > > > > machine? > > > > Some of the m68k buildds (most macs) are still running 2.2.25, the two > > > > Atari > > > > Falcons run 2.4. > > > > > > The long term aim is indeed to release etch with only 2.6 kernels, which > > > means > > > no 2.4 but also no 2.2 kernel. > > > > > > Now, the removal of the 2.2 kernel should follow the same roadmap as what > > > was > > > discussed for the 2.4 kernels, and i suppose that for m68k purpose, you > > > can > > > substitute '2.4' with '2.2 or 2.4' in all those emails. > > > > There has been no DSA for a 2.2 kernel to date in the lifetime of > > woody/sarge (counting on my recollection here, I'm currently offline), > > so I can't see how we can continue shipping it unless someone steps up > > to handle this. Of course, you could always request insecure status > > from the release team (with proper release notes, etc). > > As far as I know, 2.2 isn't even supported by glibc any more.
I've cc'd the glibc list for confirmation. > If that is > the case, we definitly shouldn't ship with 2.2. Also, anyone is free to > open a kernel-2-2.debian.net repository kernel.debian.net has a repository that could be used for stuff like this. -- dann frazier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
