On Fri, 22 Oct 2010, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Finn Thain dixit: > > >You don't need to patch anything. If the patch gets merged then it would > >be possible to increase 2.6.16 to 2.6.32, which is desirable (to me) but > >not necessary. > > It’s necessary for any package I upload, for the following reason: > > From an earlier eMail I cannot find right now, when I questioned > the bootability and usability of the archive once the migration > has started, I got the answer that the eglibc preinst refuses to > let dpkg install it if the kernel running is too old. This means > that it must know that we need a kernel > 2.6.29,
I'm not sure exactly in what ways eglibc will fail on < 2.6.32-23, but you're welcome to try it... It doesn't matter, though, because with libc_MIN_KERNEL_SUPPORTED we aren't changing dependencies. Setting --enable-kernel=2.6.16 simply makes the libc more backwards compatible (to whatever extent that it can work without TLS). So I really have no idea what your objection is. If you don't want to make the change, because you don't know what it means, that's fine, I'll file a bug report and get the maintainers to do it. Finn > because other- wise, the system might Do Bad Things™ during an upgrade > and fail because it installs a TLS libc on a non-TLS-capable system. > > I’m trying to do things as correctly and as close to the Debian way as > possible, no matter what comfort or tradition says. > > bye, > //mirabilos >
