Re: removing 2.2 from the archive?
dann frazier wrote: 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. glibc in etch needs at least a 2.4.1 kernel, except for m68k, for which the minimum version is 2.2.0. -- .''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 : :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] `-people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: removing 2.2 from the archive?
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]
Re: removing 2.2 from the archive?
* 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. 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 - and I would be willing to mention that in the release notes. I however doubt we should deliver 2.2 kernels inside of etch. Heck, we even consider to drop 2.4. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: removing 2.2 from the archive?
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). -- dann frazier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: removing 2.2 from the archive?
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. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: removing 2.2 from the archive?
On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 09:35:05PM +0200, Stefan Huehner wrote: > Hi, > > i've noticed that there are 2 packages for/referecing the kernel 2.2 > branch in the archive. > > Package: kernel-patch-2.2.25-m68k > Binary: kernel-patch-2.2.25-m68k > > Package: kernel-source-2.2.25 > Binary: kernel-source-2.2.25, kernel-doc-2.2.25 > > Are these two actually needed/used today? Or can they be removed? As the name suggests, they are used to build the 2.2.25 kernel-images for m68k, and unfortunately some m68k subarches are know to work only with 2.2 currently, that is (at least) several Atari (some work with 2.4.x) and Mac machines (Q840AV is working for me, no other machine has been reported to work with 2.6.x), see: http://wiki.debian.org/DebianM68kKernel Last week the m68k developers agreed that 2.4 could be removed, now you want to pull 2.2 as well and cut the number of my packages in half? That will 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. And what would I get in return for slashing my karma rating? Christian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: removing 2.2 from the archive?
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? My intention is to continue to support 2.2 and 2.4 kernels in the installer (as best I can), but we may need a separate repo to grab the older kernels from. -- Stephen R. Marenka If life's not fun, you're not doing it right! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: removing 2.2 from the archive?
On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 11:20:38PM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote: > On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 09:35:05PM +0200, Stefan Huehner wrote: > > Hi, > > > > i've noticed that there are 2 packages for/referecing the kernel 2.2 > > branch in the archive. > > > > Package: kernel-patch-2.2.25-m68k > > Binary: kernel-patch-2.2.25-m68k > > > > Package: kernel-source-2.2.25 > > Binary: kernel-source-2.2.25, kernel-doc-2.2.25 > > > > Are these two actually needed/used today? Or can they be removed? > > As the name suggests, they are used to build the 2.2.25 kernel-images for > m68k, and unfortunately some m68k subarches are know to work only with 2.2 > currently, that is (at least) several Atari (some work with 2.4.x) and Mac > machines (Q840AV is working for me, no other machine has been reported to > work with 2.6.x), see: > > http://wiki.debian.org/DebianM68kKernel > > Last week the m68k developers agreed that 2.4 could be removed, now you want > to pull 2.2 as well and cut the number of my packages in half? That will > 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. > > And what would I get in return for slashing my karma rating? No need to do that :) I wasn't aware that these are still needed/used. As this is the case its fine to keep that until these subarches are converted. Regards, Stefan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: removing 2.2 from the archive?
On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 09:35:05PM +0200, Stefan Huehner wrote: > Hi, > > i've noticed that there are 2 packages for/referecing the kernel 2.2 > branch in the archive. > > Package: kernel-patch-2.2.25-m68k > Binary: kernel-patch-2.2.25-m68k > > Package: kernel-source-2.2.25 > Binary: kernel-source-2.2.25, kernel-doc-2.2.25 > > Are these two actually needed/used today? Or can they be removed? Currently still being used by d-i for m68k/mac. They should probably be dropped at the same time the 2.4 kernels go. -- Stephen R. Marenka If life's not fun, you're not doing it right! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: Digital signature
removing 2.2 from the archive?
Hi, i've noticed that there are 2 packages for/referecing the kernel 2.2 branch in the archive. Package: kernel-patch-2.2.25-m68k Binary: kernel-patch-2.2.25-m68k Package: kernel-source-2.2.25 Binary: kernel-source-2.2.25, kernel-doc-2.2.25 Are these two actually needed/used today? Or can they be removed? Regards, Stefan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
