| 1 |
On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 08:18 -0600, Jason Wever wrote: |
| 2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 3 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > So... What do we say to going nptl across the board for 2006.0 on every |
| 8 |
> > platform that supports 2.6 headers? This would, of course, require |
| 9 |
> > approval from each arch team, but I'm sure ppc and amd64 are chomping at |
| 10 |
> > the bits for this one, and it sounds like the x86 arch team is wanting |
| 11 |
> > it also. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > So... any comments? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Even once we get 2.6 headers in an non-development profile, nptl is not |
| 16 |
> currently working on SPARC in glibc. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
As with the "2.6 kernels as default" decision, we would of course make |
| 19 |
exceptions for any architecture/platform that is not deemed stable by |
| 20 |
that architecture team. We don't want to cause headaches, just get to |
| 21 |
nptl where we can. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 25 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
| 26 |
Games - Developer |
| 27 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives