On 2015-12-23 11:59, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi Aurelien,
> On Dienstag, 22. Dezember 2015, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > nice! but this is not available yet in sid+testing yet, or is it? (or
> > > maybe rather: what does "2.6.32 support" mean here???)
> > I meant 2.6.32 kernel support, and it's already in testing and sid.
> I have to admit, I cannot follow:
> - if this is fixed, why is 806911 still open?

The "bug" is still there, just not triggerable anymore on amd64 and
i386. I use "bug" as when faking the kernel version to change the result
of versions comparisons, one should expect the result of such
comparisons to be wrong.

> - also, the hosts runs jessie and this is where we run linux64 on and from, 
> so 
> how are changes in sid+testing relevant in our setup anyway? (actually we run 
> jessie, sometimes with jessie kernels and and on some other hosts with bpo 
> kernels or even never…)

The host might runs jessie, but from the bug report I understood the
bug happened in a testing or sid chroot.

> - why did you 2.6._32_ mention at all, and not "2.6" (or maybe 2.6.56)?

We lowered the minimum required kernel version to 2.6.32 instead of 3.2
on amd64 and i386. When comparing kernel versions with the uname26
personality, we have the following relations when the minimum kernel
version is 2.6.32:
- 3.x kernels aka 2.6.40+x > 2.6.32, this works
- 4.x kernels aka 2.6.60+x > 2.6.32, this works

However when the minimum kernel version is 3.2:
- 3.x kernels aka 2.6.40+x < 3.2, this do not work
- 4.x kernels aka 2.6.60+x < 3.2, this do not work

> - and, finally, in conclusion, is it safe to enable building with "linux64 --
> uname2.6" again?

On amd64 and i386 it should be safe.


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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reproducible-builds mailing list

Reply via email to