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 -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproduciblefirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds