This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Linux kernel version support policy
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Adam Conrad <adconrad at 0c3 dot net>, Allan McRae <allan at archlinux dot org>, Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal dot cx>, Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>, David Miller <davem at davemloft dot net>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, aurel32 at debian dot org
- Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 00:05:59 -0500
- Subject: Re: Linux kernel version support policy
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1401272237400 dot 14736 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <3591302 dot 5mrdmfoV2Y at vapier> <20140127 dot 161754 dot 1207156302138039240 dot davem at davemloft dot net> <3104304 dot iNEJkBTBu7 at vapier> <20140129021016 dot GN24286 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <52E88CB5 dot 1030007 at archlinux dot org> <20140129101959 dot GR15976 at 0c3 dot net> <20140129103733 dot GZ2149 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1401291444160 dot 15430 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20140129181147 dot GC2149 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com>
On 01/29/2014 01:11 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 02:46:44PM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>> * general policy (my suggestion is that we default to not supporting
>> kernel versions not maintained upstream, unless we believe in a particular
>> case that there are important distribution versions using those kernels
>> that make it desirable to support using them);
>
> I am in favour of such a policy as long as we can have a discussion
> before actually doing this, because it looks like our kernel support
> is older than most major distributions.
>
>> * moving to requiring 2.6.32, the oldest currently-maintained kernel
>> series, for glibc 2.20 (release due July 2014)?
>
> I think this should be OK. I'll ask Carlos to pitch in too, to be
> sure that I haven't missed anything from the RHEL perspective.
I agree with Adam Conrad on the point that there has to be input from
the distributions before the new baseline is decided.
In our case we will always want RHEL X-1 to be able to run RHEL X
userspace in a chroot. That means that the baseline at the point we
create RHEL X must be < X-1's kernel.
I'm fine with requiring 2.6.32 for 2.20.
Cheers,
Carlos.