Comments on Version 6.0-testing-20040807

Ken Moffat ken at kenmoffat.uklinux.net
Tue Aug 10 09:03:45 PDT 2004


On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Brian Beattie wrote:

> On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 16:54, Ken Moffat wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Brian Beattie wrote:
> > >
> > > There is odd-ball hardware which 2.6 does not support.
> > > There is odd-ball software which 2.6 does not support.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > So, if you have either the hardware or the software you're stuck on
> > LFS-5, at least until somebody fixes the kernel to support the odd
> > hardware, or fixes the software to work with 2.6.
>
> Well my answer was perhaps a little terse and not the best example, but
> I really don't get the feeling that most people really care, snice the
> attitude I see is, "hey it was simple for me, that 2.4 stuff is soooo
> last month, why should I care".  Suffice it to say that slipping a 2.6
> kernel into some systems where one moght like to do something like dual
> boot while upgrading the system, is not necessaryly as simple as it was
> for you.  There are things like configuration files that change
> significantly between 2.4 and 2.6 and if you mess up, you may end up
> with a system that does not boot, which is not the case for LFS 5.x
> since you don't need to make any changes to your running system to build
> the LFS system.
>
> But this is really all a waste of bits and breath since you have made up
> your mind.
>
 So, the terse speak to the terse, but they fail to communicate :-(
You're right that most people don't care, but then most people don't
care about anything other than recent i686.  FWIW, my main boxes are
still running 2.4 (one of these has had 2.6 kernels, but it slipped back
to 2.4 on the last install and I haven't got around to upgrading it),
one i686 does have a 2.6/nptl install from approx March, my iBook is
still on 2,4 because of pmud problems (minor kernel configuration
problem, I think, but building a 2.6 kernel drains the battery so I'm in
no rush to retry it), and the AmigaOne fits into the "2.6 doesn't run on
this" category [1].

 And because of that, I'm fairly quiet on this list now.  Instead, I've
been focussed on trying to get the AmigaOne to run 2.6, including a big
detour into fixing some of its 2.4 problems.

 The point is to fix whatever is causing the problems.  Mostly, that
isn't a matter for this list and shouldn't hold back the book.

Ken

[1] Actually, 2.6 runs on it, it's just that there are a number of
showstopper problems, such as lock-ups if I page back in 'less' (console
only), and an unusable console display after using X.  To say nothing of
the minor issues in porting to 2.6 such as resetting the date to
01-01-1970 after correctly reading the RTC, and the fun that will be
entailed in getting it to a state where it's acceptable to merge into
mainline.

-- 
 das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list