Dropping sparc32 for Lenny (was: Scheduling linux-2.6 2.6.21-[23])
(Resending as I forgot to change the subject. Sorry about that.) On Friday 18 May 2007 12:18, Bastian Blank wrote: I'd like to schedule the linux-2.6 2.6.21-[23] upload for today. Fixes: [...] - sparc32 deprecation? No fix yet for the cmpxchg problem. This would have a serious implication for Debian Installer as we'd also have to drop support for sparc32 if this is done. The deprecation of sparc32 has been raised last month on the debian-sparc list [1] by Jurij Smakov with as main reason that there is basically no longer any upstream (kernel) support for sparc32. Other reasons were listed as well. In that thread there was some opposition to the idea, but I've not seen anybody making the commitment to maintain sparc32, so dropping it for Lenny does seem logical. However, I do not think this is a decision that should be made solely on the debian-kernel list. I also feel that the decision (when it has been made) should be announced to our users. Cheers, FJP [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-sparc/2007/04/msg00044.html This mail also lists the arguments for dropping sparc32. pgpXWIRCI4lyX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Dropping sparc32 for Lenny (was: Scheduling linux-2.6 2.6.21-[23])
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 01:10:15PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: - sparc32 deprecation? No fix yet for the cmpxchg problem. For now I only want to disable it. In that thread there was some opposition to the idea, but I've not seen anybody making the commitment to maintain sparc32, so dropping it for Lenny does seem logical. I have to acknowledge the message from Dave[1]. Until there is a new kernel upstream it may be possible to compile it but it is impossible to fix real problems. However, I do not think this is a decision that should be made solely on the debian-kernel list. I also feel that the decision (when it has been made) should be announced to our users. -kernel can produce facts. I have no problems building it, but someone else needs to do the support. Bastian [1] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.sparc/7531 -- Those who hate and fight must stop themselves -- otherwise it is not stopped. -- Spock, Day of the Dove, stardate unknown -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dropping sparc32 for Lenny (was: Scheduling linux-2.6 2.6.21-[23])
On Friday 18 May 2007 14:05, Bastian Blank wrote: I have to acknowledge the message from Dave[1]. Until there is a new kernel upstream it may be possible to compile it but it is impossible to fix real problems. Yes, I completely agree with that. However, when you casually propose to _deprecate_ (instead of temporarily disable) sparc32 as part of a kernel upload proposal, then I feel the discussion needs to be moved to a wider audience. On Friday 18 May 2007 14:12, Bastian Blank wrote: On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 04:23:00AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: Has there been any input from the sparc porters on this last change? There are very few really active porters for sparc. Most active over the past couple of years has been Jurij Smakov, and he launched the proposal to drop sparc32. I agree with Frans that regardless of the upstream status, this isn't a change to be made without their consent. The given thread shows noone which intends to step in. And the process to find a consent there seems to be failed. Correct. And I said as much in my mail. My take on the thread is that the general consensus among DDs is that it is unavoidable. Some users argue for continuation, but no one seems willing to step in and the work needed for that. Basically I'm in favor of dropping sparc32 (though also a bit sad about dropping support for yet another class of hardware). The arguments in favor of dropping it are pretty strong. I'd be satisfied if the project would reach that decision in this thread. pgpLG2r0LS92y.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Dropping sparc32 for Lenny (was: Scheduling linux-2.6 2.6.21-[23])
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 02:39:41PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: On Friday 18 May 2007 14:05, Bastian Blank wrote: I have to acknowledge the message from Dave[1]. Until there is a new kernel upstream it may be possible to compile it but it is impossible to fix real problems. Yes, I completely agree with that. However, when you casually propose to _deprecate_ (instead of temporarily disable) sparc32 as part of a kernel upload proposal, then I feel the discussion needs to be moved to a wider audience. Frans, Bastian did write : For now I only want to disable it. in the message you quote. This seems in complete opposition to what you claim he did say. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
