On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 09:55:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 05:29:38PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > There's a few reports against 2.4 kernel that are fixed in 2.6 and are > > unlikely to get in 2.4 every (Examples: #146956 or #130217). How should > > we deal with them in the BTS? > > The real question here is to ask ourselves what is our option for the > sarge release. Will we release with 2.4 as default, which is the track > we are on right now, or will we release with 2.6 as default, and keep > 2.4 about only as backup in case there is a real problem with 2.4.
While this is an important question (and I'll comment more on it below) it's pretty much irrelevant to the kind of bugs I was thinking about when writing this mail. I was only thinking about bugs which are extremly hard to fix in 2.4 and thus are a) a lot of work and b) don't haev much of a chance upstream, like the removal of the 32bit groups limit. For other reported bugs that require less work I wouldn't just declare them wontfix as long as the 2.4 kernels are considered supported in 2.4. > -> oldworld pmac : We need to shrink the size of the kernel so it > fits on a miboot floppy and test it. This should be best achieved by > modularizing the pmac-ide driver, and other pmac stuff which could > be modularized. Benh said he scarcely has time for it, and Christoph > promised he would have a look. I've done a patch but it doesn't work. I'll try to investigate it further soon. > -> apus : Well, a 2.6 port could be done and tested, using a > conditionally applied patch or something such, or merging the > patches. That said, since there are at most 5-10 users left, and > those are using their own kernels, maybe we should drop kernel > support for them. What's the status of apus on 2.6? I saw Roman posting patches for apus on linuxppc-dev and IIRC they got applied. Are there more than those patches required? What's the status of apus for recent 2.4.x?
