On 2015-12-21 19:02, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
> cc:ing the bug and thus leaving some more context…
> On Montag, 21. Dezember 2015, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> > On 2015-12-21, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > >> For now, relying on the fact that there are different actual kernels on
> > >> various builds (4.x vs. 3.x) will hopefully be good enough to detect the
> > >> issue that using "linux64 --uname-2.6" was trying to solve.
> > > 
> > > yeah. what I don't like about this is that it forces us to do that. I
> > > liked the flexibility using --uname-2.6 gave us…
> > 
> > The impression I got was the patch implementation was rejected upstream,
> > but in theory a better patch could be written. Aurelian wasn't planning
> > on working on it.
> I've got the same impression.

I still have it on my todo list, but with very low priority. So if
someone wants to provide a patch, that would be welcome.

Also note that we have re-enabled 2.6.32 support on amd64 and i386, so
you should not need any patch to get these architectures working.


Aurelien Jarno                          GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurel...@aurel32.net                 http://www.aurel32.net

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reproducible-builds mailing list

Reply via email to