Re: 2.4 vs. 2.6 (was: Re: Moving /var/run to a tmpfs?)
On 9/17/06, Hendrik Sattler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: A good hint for such cases is to actually report such bugs to the driver developers. Did you? You must have pretty uncommon hardware, though, as many use 2.6 kernels without such problems... I have an old server with 2.4 because 2.6 won't run on it. Not big deal, it doesn't need 2.6 anyway... -- Martín Ferrari
Re: 2.4 vs. 2.6
Hendrik Sattler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A good hint for such cases is to actually report such bugs to the driver > developers. Did you? It's still in my reproduction and analysis-queue. However, 2.6 is not my biggest priority atm (it will still take a while to get it stable anyways :)). > You must have pretty uncommon hardware, though, as many use 2.6 kernels > without such problems... Not uncommon hardware, but uncommon usage patterns because my only reason for using 2.6 currently (with Knoppix) is maintenance - and reproduction of 2.4-problems to decide if I report them immediately or later :). regards Mario -- When Bruce Schneier uses double ROT13 encryption, the ciphertext is totally unbreakable. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2.4 vs. 2.6 (was: Re: Moving /var/run to a tmpfs?)
Am Sonntag 17 September 2006 12:28 schrieb Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe: > However, as long > as I can easily freeze my machine just by doing really simple disk-I/O > tasks (which just happened when I had a need to boot into a Knoppix), > I will definitely not consider it to run on my servers. A good hint for such cases is to actually report such bugs to the driver developers. Did you? You must have pretty uncommon hardware, though, as many use 2.6 kernels without such problems... HS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2.4 vs. 2.6
Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > Well, if there are really packages that demand on 2.6, they just can > depend on kernel-image-2.6, this is no problem at all. [...] No, they cannot. Kernel version requirements cannot be expressed in package dependencies because a) You can have multiple different kernels installed. Package dependiencies cannot specify "The kernel that you currently have booted" b) Debian supports running kernels that are not installed by using a package therefore there are installations without any kernel-image package installed. cu andreas -- The 'Galactic Cleaning' policy undertaken by Emperor Zhark is a personal vision of the emperor's, and its inclusion in this work does not constitute tacit approval by the author or the publisher for any such projects, howsoever undertaken.(c) Jasper Ffforde -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2.4 vs. 2.6 (was: Re: Moving /var/run to a tmpfs?)
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The problem with supporting old kernels is not just the need to maintain 2.4 is not old, it's just stable :) > a few packages like initrd-tools or modutils, but that every important > package cannot rely on features of modern kernels: inotify, sysfs, etc. Well, I live quite well with Debian unstable on top of 2.4 on my workstation. It seems there are not so much important packages that really rely on "modern" features. > This means that Debian as a whole will either lack support for features > relying on these kernel features or will become more and more complex > due to compatibility code. Well, if there are really packages that demand on 2.6, they just can depend on kernel-image-2.6, this is no problem at all. I agree with you that package maintainers should not be forced to develop 2.4-compatibility on their own, if upstream doesn't do it itself. However, from my point of view, quite all relevant software just *does* support 2.4 and 2.6 upstream anyways. So there is virtually no need to increase complexity. > Please consider carefully the effects of advocating support for old > kernels. IIRC, Linus declared feature-freeze for 2.6.16 first. To be honest, I cannot see any feature-freeze until now. I personally decided to give 2.6 a first try on my workstation when 2.6.18 is out. However, as long as I can easily freeze my machine just by doing really simple disk-I/O tasks (which just happened when I had a need to boot into a Knoppix), I will definitely not consider it to run on my servers. regards Mario -- File names are infinite in length where infinity is set to 255 characters. -- Peter Collinson, "The Unix File System" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
