On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 11:56:30PM -0400, Kumba wrote: > John Mylchreest wrote: > > > >No objections here. I've been waiting fort his move for a little while > >now. The only real problems will be with those 2.4 (devfs) users who > >refuse to move, maybe this is good enough incentive. > > Just to make sure on a few things, we're talking x86 users here being the > hardcore 2.4 types, right?
Yes. > While I'm all for 2.6, mips-side, we've still got some issues on IP22 > (Indy/Indigo2) systems that forces me to keep a 2.4.31 ebuild around. > Sparc is also in a similar, although much bigger boat, where a whole lot of > 2.6.x releases just don't work for various systems, thus they have to stick > with 2.4.x as well. I understand that other arches need to stay at 2.4 for various reasons. Hopefully those issues will be fixed so that this situation doesn't stay that way for much longer. I am supprised that Sparc64 is stuck with 2.4, as the main kernel developers of that tree work on 2.6 everyday. As for mips, I thought the recent (few kernel versions ago) merge brought you all up to speed? Anything that I can do to help this, please let me know. > Any of these changes that may affect 2.4/devfs usage need to keep this in > mind that some of us who still use 2.4/devfs may not be doing so out of > choice, simply because it's the only option we have. You do have the static /dev option :) Anyway, no, I don't want to break your boxes at all, that's why I want to stay with the LSB naming scheme, which the default devfs config also supports. thanks, greg k-h -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
