At Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:29:43 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 10:38:47AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > > At Sun, 20 Nov 2005 14:22:22 -0500, > > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > Steve Langasek agreed. I am planning to bump the requirement up from > > > 2.2.whatever to 2.4.0 for i486 and powerpc; i486 in order to enable > > > floating stacks, and powerpc because we've been getting bug reports > > > that indicate that static binaries are already broken there under 2.2, > > > and no one wants to debug it. > > > > > > Any objections before I do this? > > > > Is it already done? If it's pended, I'll ask it to > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] The security support for 2.2 series was finished, > > we have no reason to support 2.2 kernel. > > No, it isn't :-( I didn't get around to it; if you could, that would > be great.
Okay, I see. It's time to transit. > > Note that the current status of the support kernel versions are: > > > > amd64 2.6.0 > > i386(i686) 2.6.0 > > i386(amd64) 2.6.0 > > *(nptl) 2.6.0 > > ppc64 2.6.0 > > s390x 2.4.1 > > sparc64 2.4.18 > > sparcv9 2.4.18 > > sparcv9b 2.4.18 > > > > others 2.2.0 > > > > They'll be changed to: > > > > i386(i486) 2.4.1 > > powerpc 2.4.1 (?) > > > > BTW, note that some architectures like m68k could not compile the > > recent glibc with kernel 2.4.x or 2.6.x. > > Might want to check with the s390x and sparc porters, too. If 2.4 is > dead for those architectures, we don't need to carry it around. ARM > could probably use a bump, but I'm not sure to what. Thanks for your comments. I'll consider about such architectures. -- gotom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
