Re: Requiring Linux 3.2 for glibc 2.24

[Aurelien Jarno <aurelien at aurel32 dot net>]

On 2016-02-09 15:55, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2016, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> 
> > On 2016-01-31 16:22, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > > As Linux 2.6.32 has been announced to reach end-of-line next month 
> > > <https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/1/29/647>, I propose that for glibc 2.24 we 
> > > require Linux 3.2 as the minimum kernel version when glibc is used on 
> > > systems with the Linux kernel and there isn't already a more recent 
> > > architecture-specific minimum.  This would continue to be the minimum 
> > > until 3.2 reaches EOL (currently listed as May 2018 at 
> > > <https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html>).  3.2 would thus also be 
> > > the minimum headers version as well as the minimum version at runtime.
> > 
> > I am in favor of that. That said when have we tried to do so in Debian
> > stretch/sid (which will be released in 2017), people started to complain
> > loudly that it breaks openvz. We had to revert the change given a lot of
> > VPS providers are using openvz.
> 
> Was there any controversy for architectures other than x86 / x86_64?  
> While I'm not convinced it's sensible to try to support late-2016 
> distributions running on kernel series dating from 2009, as I said in 
> <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2016-02/msg00031.html>, changing the 
> minimum for other architectures does allow a fair number of the cleanups, 
> although not all of them.

No there was no controversy for others architecture, and actually we
reverted the change only for x86 / x86_64.

-- 
Aurelien Jarno                          GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurelien@aurel32.net                 http://www.aurel32.net