Am Montag 03 August 2009 schrieb Roman Kyrylych: > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 16:46, Dan McGee<[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Jan de Groot<[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 15:47 +0300, Roman Kyrylych wrote: > >>> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 14:13, Daenyth Blank<[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 04:39, Roman Kyrylych<[email protected]> wrote: > >>> >> I don't really understand why minimal .25 kernel is a problem? > >>> >> Aren't we the bleeding edge distro? > >>> > > >>> > For some virtualized providers (slicehost off the top of my head), > >>> > they use their own kernel that isn't as up to date. This update would > >>> > break all such hosted Arch servers. > >>> > >>> IgnorePkg? > >>> And how often are such hosted Arch servers updated anyway? > >>> And we do not support custom kernels officially anyway. > >>> > >>> What I'm trying to say is that holding updates because of this is not > >>> acceptable IMO. > > > > I didn't say "holding updates", I just wanted to either find a > > workaround if available so as not to break user systems completely. > > I didn't mean you said that. My second sentence was more general. > > >> Sidenote2: This udev bump from minimal kernel version from 2.6.22 to > >> 2.6.25 (mandatory) because use the signalfd(). An announce required? > > > > Wowzers, I'm not so sure we want to do that. > > We don't have a choice (at least I don't see it). > I mean - suppose we patch udev to not use signalfd so it runs on 2.6.22 > (which is a very bad idea IMO, but let's suppose) > - we will have to bump our minimal kernel requirement at some time anyway, > so I don't see a benefit in trying to workaround the version bump. > > I think people who use old kernels know what they are doing, > and are smart enough to check the list of updates > and read newsitems on the main site (which we should post about this) > I don't think anyone blindly runs -Syu on a production server via ssh. > > > Ever had to rescue a remote server because sshd didn't come up? > > I don't understand what your example has to do with this (udev vs sshd). > > > Not supporting custom kernels *officially*? Of course. Not supporting > > custom kernels? Did something change in the past 4 years that I > > missed? I thought Arch was always a bit of a DIY distro, it's rather > > shortsighted to assume one kernel fits everyone... > > I didn't mean we should support only the latest and greatest default > kernel. Rather I meant that we don't provide official out-of-the-box > support for running on quite old or heavily customized kernels, > so some user changes may be required, > like in this case - adding udev to IgnorePkg > until the hosting provider will update their kernel. > I think such server could safely use old initscripts and udev > and only update the required software like apache > (due to security issues or bugfixes). > > > P.S.: Since text cannot transfer intonation, I'd like to notice that > my comments in this thread are by no means flaming. > Just expressing some thoughts. Announcement on NEWS page was posted some time ago, shall we move it in?
-- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
