Re: 2.4 vs. 2.6 (was: Re: Moving /var/run to a tmpfs?)

2006-09-22 Thread Martín Ferrari
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

2.4 vs. 2.6 (was: Re: Moving /var/run to a tmpfs?)

2006-09-17 Thread Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe
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.

Re: 2.4 vs. 2.6

2006-09-17 Thread Andreas Metzler
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

Re: 2.4 vs. 2.6 (was: Re: Moving /var/run to a tmpfs?)

2006-09-17 Thread Hendrik Sattler
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

Re: 2.4 vs. 2.6

2006-09-17 Thread Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe
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