On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 01:17:54PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> But I do not view non-ia32 support as being a 2.6.0 requirement. I'd be OK
>> with 2.6.0 working _only_ on ia32. Other architectures will catch up when
>> they can. The only core requirement is that 2.6.0 not contain gross
>> x86isms which make other ports impossible.
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 11:25:32PM +0100, Dave Jones wrote:
> I kinda sorta agree. Holding up 2.6.0 for other ports to catch up
> could end up with us waiting, and in the meantime, Linus merging other
> stuff which could break non-x86 etc..
> Once we're into 2.6.x though, would it be unfeasable to hold off on
> final point releases until arch maintainers have sent in a 'make things
> work for this release' diff ? Ie, make rc's "strict bugfixes only, and
> arch updates"
> Though, for some archs (sparc32 springs to mind), we may end up waiting
> quite a while, so perhaps just settle on a handful of 'to be kept
> up-to-date' archs ?
MIPS seems to be taking a while too.
-- wli
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 15 2003 - 22:00:49 EST