[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Why is ide-scsi not provided in Arjan's 2.6 kernel?



Once upon a time, Xose Vazquez Perez <xose wanadoo es> said:
> Chris Adams wrote:
> > Once upon a time, Xose Vazquez Perez <xose wanadoo es> said:
> >>I hope to see a 2.4.x kernel in FC2 _too_. Otherwise it will be a lame
> >>distribution.
> 
> > What would be lame about not including an old kernel?
> 
> If 2.6 doesn't bring _all functional features_ that 2.4 has, it will
> be necessary a backup 2.4 kernel.

Since new versions almost never have everything old versions had (some
things do get lost because nobody cares enough to fix them), that
requirement would hold things back forever.  Heck, FC1 doesn't have some
thing from RHL9; that doesn't mean FC1 won't replace RHL9.

> Today must-fix.txt and should-fix.txt(PRI1) are big lists.

And FC2 is around 5 months away; there's a lot of time to get things in
shape.

> > Including multiple kernel versions (especially from different major
> > release trains) greatly increases complexity for very little gain.
> 
> Mandrake 9.2 and SuSE 9.0 bring 2.6 & 2.4 kernels. If they are able to do it,
> why not Fedora ?

I don't know about SuSE, but I believe Mandrake runs 2.4 and then
includes a "preview" 2.6 kernel, like RHL 7.0 ran 2.2 and included a 2.4
kernel in a preview directory.

Having a new kernel as a "preview" is a far sight from having two major
"supported" kernel releases.  It might have been possible to have a 2.6
preview for FC1, but it wasn't really quite ready.  By FC2, the general
expectation will be 2.6.

If someone wants to maintain a 2.4 kernel for FC2, they could do it as
part of Fedora Alternatives or Extras.

-- 
Chris Adams <cmadams hiwaay net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.




[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]