| 1 |
Ben Munat wrote: |
| 2 |
> Thanks very much for your thorough reply. I'm not sure I completely |
| 3 |
> followed the last couple paragraphs, but I'm a bit brain dead right |
| 4 |
> now... will hang onto the email and read through it again -- maybe while |
| 5 |
> looking through the profile hierarchy at the same time -- some time soon. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
No problem, the last couple of paragraphs were somewhat tangiental to |
| 8 |
the point if I recall correctly. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> I did have one more question/observation, however... It was indeed gss |
| 11 |
> sources that I said I was running. And, in case you didn't know, they're |
| 12 |
> dead... no more development, not even in portage any more, I don't |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
That's correct. The maintainer is not longer with the development team. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> think. Consequently, I don't see anymore kernel source updates... |
| 17 |
> haven't in months. So, would this be of any consequence with the profile |
| 18 |
> and/or headers moving forward? Hmm, and actually, are we now done seeing |
| 19 |
> revisions of 2.4 headers forever? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
No and, to the best of my knowledge, no respectively. You can use |
| 22 |
whatever kernel you like. Just don't build "headers-sensitive" packages |
| 23 |
against headers that are in advance of the kernel you intend to run - |
| 24 |
see my last post for gratuitous detail ;) That's why you should use the |
| 25 |
2.4 sub-profile that portage has provided in the 2005.0 case. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I don't believe that there is any official plan to drop 2.4 at this |
| 28 |
point. It would be madness if they did, IMHO. So, if bugs are filed |
| 29 |
concerning packages which don't play well when compiled against 2.4 |
| 30 |
headers then I'm sure that you can expect some 2.4 headers updates in |
| 31 |
the future still. Conversely, if the headers are known to work with all |
| 32 |
affected packages in portage then there is no particular requirement to |
| 33 |
update them. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Perhaps a developer could clarify Gentoo's policy in terms of how long |
| 36 |
it intends to support 2.4 (if such a policy exists)? |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
HTH, |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
--Kerin Francis Millar |
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
gentoo-server@g.o mailing list |
Archives