Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 16:18 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> Let this be a lesson to everyone. Just because you discussed it a >>> couple months ago doesn't necessarily mean: >>> >>> a) it is still wanted >>> -or- >>> b) it is still valid >> so what is the 2.4 status then ? > > Well, we still don't support it on sparc/x86. It is unsupported on > Alpha, too, unless you have one of the machines that 2.6 won't yet run > on, which have been discovered since my last speaking with the team and > is the reason why I screwed up. The idea is to leave it "deprecated" on > alpha without listing a removal date. About the only thing that I have > done here is removed the "November 1st" removal date. Now, maybe we'll > get lucky and can fix the kernel on those machines between now and then, > but if not, it isn't a big deal. It can stay for Alpha and not really > affect too many people. The Alpha machines aren't ones people would > typically use for a desktop, and this was hurried along because of some > requests from the GNOME team, who are hating the 2.4 profiles since > every GNOME since 2.16 has required 2.6/hal/udev to work properly. The > 2.4 profiles are currently causing them headaches, and from my own > experiences, will continue to do so, as more and more things are going > to quit working on 2.4 as time goes on...
Huh. So. Though I've been constantly working on cleaning up 2.4 kernel-related stuff and old profiles in the handbooks and other documents, do any more changes need to be made, and if so, can I make them now? (I'd really like to, lest I/everyone else forget about it around November.) See especially http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-upgrading.xml for potential cleanups.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
