On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 03:31:06PM -0500, dann frazier wrote: > On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 11:57:51AM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > * dann frazier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-16 17:04]: > > > I believe there's a rough consensus to not ship 2.4 in etch. Anyone > > > object to a filing of bugs to remove these packages from etch? > > > > For mips/mipsel, there's at least one sub-arch that is not in 2.6 yet. > > It's getting close though, but in the meantime I'd like to keep 2.4. > > > > For arm, I've recently removed the last bits of 2.4 from d-i and I was > > going to request the removal after the next d-i beta. > > > > In general, imho 2.4 should be removed from d-i first for each arch, > > and then after the next beta the 2.4 kernel images can be removed. We > > can start with the removal of 2.4 from those architectures which no > > longer use 2.4 at all (e.g. powerpc).
Notice that powerpc/pmac/nubus is not yet ported to 2.6, we had a (largely untested though) 2.4.27 nubus kernel in sarge. > This makes sense to me; maybe we should create a hitlist of 2.4 stuff > that needs to be removed before etch, and remove all the bits that > don't break d-i now, something like: > http://wiki.debian.org/DebianKernel2%2e4EtchHitList Maybe more interesting would be a list of all those arches and subarches who still have problems with 2.6, and a list of issues, so people with interest to work on them, can help out. This could also be doubled in a list of issues which are debian specific patches also, and not yet merged upstream, with some kind of plan or eta or whatever for such a merge. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
