On 23/06/13 13:00, Robert Millan wrote: > 2013/6/23 Steven Chamberlain <[email protected]>: >> so it may be more advantageous to instead try to make >> 9.1 available through wheezy-backports. > > You mean the kernel only? In my experience this is not as easy as it > looks. A new kernel often drags in the rest of FreeBSD userland due to > ABI changes.
Yes I meant the kernel only; I was optimistically thinking they wouldn't break ABI between minor versions but maybe that is fatally wrong to assume. I minimally tested running wheezy/sid system including ZFS on a 9.1 kernel some months ago. > If you want 9.1 in wheezy-backports, you can always try of course. But > I wouldn't make plans based on the assumption that it will be > possible. I think I could accept the risk. I only found one or maybe two things that seemed viable to backport to 9.0, whereas many more people have driver issues that only an upgrade to 9.1 could fix. > OTOH, GCC diverges more and more from the old version they were using. > Sounds like a potential source of trouble, and we've had serious > problems in the past because of this. I'm concerned by the rate that some things are changing recently, mostly in packages that have close Debian/Ubuntu co-ordination (which includes GCC), and it is usually at the expense of the architectures Ubuntu isn't selling (which are only Linux i386/amd64/ARM). There is expected to be a gcc-4.9 appear in the archive soon, and I wonder if gcc-4.8 is really going to stay, remembering what happened late in the wheezy release cycle. This is very much a personal opinion but maybe clang-3.2 could be easier to keep up with for the jessie cycle. This puts me slightly in favour of trying clang-3.2 but unfortunately it is a preference not based on technical merit. Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain [email protected] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
