sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>
- To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] linux-2.4
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:39:49 -0800
Quoting Thomas Orgis <thomas-forum AT orgis.org>:
Am Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:45:17 +0100
schrieb Treeve Jelbert <treeve AT scarlet.be>:
Is it time to drop support for linux-2.4.x?
No other major distribution bothers with it now.
Possibly move it into an unsupported branch?
linux-2.4 on SMGL is at best extremely untested, and thus by definition broken.
Unless of course, someone using a 2.4 kernel speaks up.
We keep the possibility to _not_ use udev and hal; 2.4 lovers can then still install the kernel themselves (like several people do with their regular 2.6 kernels anyway).
Except part of the point is to cleanup glibc, without the 2.4 check in there a 2.4 kernel user won't be able to use our glibc, and so there should be *no* need to provide any non-2.6 features.
'course, udev and hal are optional for 2.6 anyways, so we just keep it that way. ;)
I'm all for removing 2.4 support, though in the past I had wanted to keep it, I'm now leaning the other way. ;)
-sandalle
--
Eric Sandall | Source Mage GNU/Linux Developer
eric AT sandall.us PGP: 0xA8EFDD61 | http://www.sourcemage.org/
http://eric.sandall.us/ | http://counter.li.org/ #196285
-
[SM-Discuss] linux-2.4,
Treeve Jelbert, 02/19/2009
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] linux-2.4,
Thomas Orgis, 02/19/2009
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] linux-2.4,
Eric Sandall, 02/26/2009
- Re: [SM-Discuss] linux-2.4, Arwed von Merkatz, 02/27/2009
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] linux-2.4,
Eric Sandall, 02/26/2009
- Re: [SM-Discuss] linux-2.4, George Sherwood, 02/23/2009
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] linux-2.4,
Thomas Orgis, 02/19/2009
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.