Quoting Divacky Roman <xdivac02_at_stud.fit.vutbr.cz> (from Thu, 11 Jan 2007 09:50:23 +0100): > On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 08:53:48AM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote: >> Quoting Jeremie Le Hen <jeremie_at_le-hen.org> (from Wed, 10 Jan 2007 >> 23:58:20 +0100): >> >> [moving to current_at_] >> >> >Hi Alexander, >> >> >Sorry if this has been already discussed in the past, I've certainly >> >missed the thread. >> > >> >Is there any strong reason to not enable 2.6.x emulation by default >> >in the future RELENG_7 ? >> >> We have FC4 in the linux base port. Fedora Legacy is abandoning it, so >> no security updates anymore. FC5 and later require a 2.6 kernel, they >> don't run with a 2.4 kernel. So we need the 2.6 emulation rather >> sooner than later. > > this raises an issue about updating the FC4 to FC5 if RELENG_[56] is Yes. That's a major issue. > not able to use it at all. do we plan to ever MFC the 2.6 stuff? > I dont think its a good idea (its a major change) but then - what > is the policy on updating the linux base port? when the 7.x is widespread > enough? A while ago I thought a little bit about it and then I quickly stopped thinking about it. I will start again to think about it when I see FC4 running with 2.6 on all supported platforms. Based upon this I coordinate with Boris and portmgr to come to a final conclusion. >> So currently the strong reason to not enable it by default is: major >> bugs, lack of amd64 support and no widespread testing. > > widespread testing cannot be achieved without turning it on by default I was talking about the default on 7.0-RELEASE, not about the default in 7-current. >> When we fixed the showstopper bug with acroread and don't identify >> another major bug, I will ask for testing 2.6 on -current to identify >> the easy to find bugs. After a week or two I will change the default >> emulation to 2.6 in -current, except we have some showstopper >> problems. At this point I also hope to have the code for amd64 in the >> tree. > > sounds like a plan to me :) but I dont really think we have to wait for > amd64. The part we need to test is almost 100% MI. The MD parts are setting > up GDT which accounts for a few lines of code (note that most of the > new futexes > are MI code). I'd prefer testing only on i386 over no testing at all. Let's wait until the 1-2 weeks passed after I requested tests with 2.6 on current_at_. Maybe we have amd64 synced by then. If not we can still talk about it. Bye, Alexander. -- http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander _at_ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild _at_ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137 Kill your parents. -- Jerry RubinReceived on Thu Jan 11 2007 - 09:08:33 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:04 UTC