| 1 |
Lance Albertson wrote: |
| 2 |
> I was actually just thinking about WOLK today and how I never got around |
| 3 |
> to putting the newest builds in the tree. For now keep them in there. |
| 4 |
> I'll email upstream to see if whats the status on development for WOLK |
| 5 |
> these days. The mailing lists have been quiet for the most part, so |
| 6 |
> we'll see. It may be based on 2.4.20 but its no where near to what |
| 7 |
> 2.4.20 is ;). Its closer to a 2.6 kernel by now with its latest |
| 8 |
> versions. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
2.4.20 came out in 2002. You'd have thought they might base it off something |
| 11 |
newer by now... |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> Infra currently decommissioned to the two boxes we were running WOLK on, |
| 14 |
> so we don't currently have a need for it from that side of things. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I'll report back when I find out whats going on! |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Ok. The main issue is that keeping old kernels around is a maintenance |
| 19 |
nightmare with the security patches, etc. Also, this kernel is so heavily |
| 20 |
patched that it would be impossible for us to support it. On top of that, |
| 21 |
there doesn't seem to be any demand for it - we have only ever had a few bug |
| 22 |
reports for it, and we've never recieved a bump request for the latest version |
| 23 |
which is months behind the last official release. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I'll at least be cleaning out the two older versions (4.9-r21 and 4.11-r17) |
| 26 |
over the next few days. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Daniel |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives