This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Requiring Linux 3.2 for glibc 2.24
- From: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- To: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>, Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 11:42:03 +0100
- Subject: Re: Requiring Linux 3.2 for glibc 2.24
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1601311614080 dot 31071 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <56AE4D5F dot 9080105 at redhat dot com> <E549E742-5E32-4C68-947A-40F32EB61FB8 at linaro dot org> <56AE69A0 dot 4030302 at redhat dot com>
On Sun, 2016-01-31 at 21:08 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 01/31/2016 07:30 PM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> > I see no compelling reason to switch to a non-supported version. Also I would have prefer GLIBC to keep supporting the minimum LTS kernel version instead of a specific version.
> It's mostly 2.6.32 on everything except Alpha. These cleanups won't
> happen over night, especially not the less obvious ones (such as the
> ST_VALID cleanup). I just wonder if we could support 2.6.32 with little
> more effort for a one or more future releases.
So, IIUC, this wouldn't be a change for anything but Alpha? Is Alpha
really worth this extra treatment?