[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I have the following idea regarding security support for 2.4 in etch:
- make 2.6 the default for new installs but provide 2.4 for those who want it
Do you understand that next year 2.4 kernels will probably not
installable on a large fraction of the then current
On Tuesday 07 February 2006 12:21, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Do you understand that next year 2.4 kernels will probably not
installable on a large fraction of the then current hardware?
This whole discussion is not about current hardware. It is specifically
about older hardware and about some
also volunteer to do/help with.)
I dont wanna push this just because I want to maintain the 2.4 kernels (rather
I want 2.4 kernels in etch because I prefer rock-solid kernel and systems.)
IMHO some users would be happy about a official uptodate 2.4 kernel in
etch, that's all. If my todo-lists
On Sunday 05 February 2006 15:57, Holger Levsen wrote:
hhpa has dropped 2.4 support for sarge... s390 also doesnt seem
sensible.
2.6 support for S/390 has missing pieces (mainly hardware configuration
stuff). Waldi has been working on this recently, but a full switch to 2.6
is not yet an
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 03:57:45PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
On Sunday 29 January 2006 00:30, Holger Levsen wrote:
There are several reasons why 2.4 is still interesting:
- Kernel 2.6 is still a moving target...
As Marco d'Itri pointed out, this will stay this way, so I'm
Holger Levsen wrote:
* Unfortunatly, nobody from the kernel team is really interested in
working on 2.4 anymore. They do security fixes for the 2.4 kernels
in woody and sarge, for which I'm very thankful, but that's about it.
Even though 2.4 is moving very slowly nowadays
On Monday 30 January 2006 03:29, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
Wouldn't it then be possible then to drop D-I support for 2.4 and ask
user to install the old kernel, if needed after the installation? At
least if supporting 2.4 for D-I is getting to complicate...
Switching from 2.4 to 2.6 (and vice
On Sun, 2006-01-29 at 23:18 +0100, maximilian attems wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
Holger Levsen wrote:
Even though 2.4 is moving very slowly nowadays (mostly security
updates,
very seldom new drivers are including), this is more work than needed,
Hi Holger,
thanks for raising this important issue and sorry for being slow to reply.
I think that I agree with pretty much everything you wrote, so I won't
reiterate that here. However, I'd like to take the opportunity to
clarify my position with regards to 2.4 in Etch.
When I first became
On the topic of Security fixes and 2.4's upstream. Dann, myself, and
all others involved endeavour to push any patches we find that are
missing from upstream to the relevant parties. This includes 2.4 and
2.6, security and non-security patches. Marcelo has specifically asked
vendors (and others)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Kernel 2.6 is still a moving target...
And it will always be, so people should learn to deal with this.
- Some hardware is only supported with 2.4, for example older laptops
which need APM and don't work with ACPI. Also some non-i386 machines.
What about
Holger Levsen wrote:
* This is a blog entry I wanted to write for about six weeks now, but I=20
was busy with other stuff. In December 2005 I got curious why 2.4.32
wasn't packaged for Debian and investigated the situation a bit.
There are several reasons why 2.4 is still
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 12:30:04AM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
- According to popcon, 6-7% of the i386 users have a kernel-2.4 image
installed.
How much of those are using it out of pure inertai, ond how many really need
it ?
* Of course there are some issues which need to be
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
Holger Levsen wrote:
Even though 2.4 is moving very slowly nowadays (mostly security updates,
very seldom new drivers are including), this is more work than needed,
because every fix needs to be backported to 2.4.27 (and 2.4.18 for
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 01:39:42PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Horms made a [2 presentation] about the kernel packaging in debian for
LCA
and gave two options: a.) support and backport fixes for 2.4.27 or b.)
go
with 2.4.32. Somehow he did not consider the option of
On Sunday 29 January 2006 00:30, Holger Levsen [1] wrote:
- it's not sensible to have powerpc and amd64 flavors, and probably
others. So this kernel package will not be arch any. (Which is not
really a problem, but unusual.)
Probably hppa, ia64 and also alpha won't need 2.4 for
Hi!
* Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060130 01:54]:
On Sunday 29 January 2006 00:30, Holger Levsen [1] wrote:
- Some hardware is only supported with 2.4, for example older laptops
which need APM and don't work with ACPI. Also some non-i386 machines.
Are there any cases, where you can't
17 matches
Mail list logo
