This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Requiring Linux 3.2 for glibc 2.24
- From: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>
- To: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 12:05:33 -0200
- 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> <20160201133505 dot GB706 at altlinux dot org>
On 01-02-2016 11:35, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 04:22:07PM +0000, 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.
> There are other providers of LTS linux kernels available, for example,
> RHEL6 kernel has EOL in 2019. The change you propose would be especially
> nasty to projects like openvz.org: they provide RHEL based kernels to run
> containers, and their RHEL7 based openvz kernel is still in testing.
> Raising the bar in glibc would leave openvz users without a stable kernel
> where they would be able to run containers based on glibc > 2.23.
> That is, I propose to leave unchanged the minimum kernel version required
> for glibc 2.24.
I do not consider RHEL (or any specific provider )to be a LTS provider for
1. Kernel source is provided by login-wall , which IMHO maybe a sufficient
reason to ditch this a LTS provider;
2. RHEL LTS kernel is also focused only on the architectures that redhat
effectively support (which are less than what glibc current supports);
3. THEL LTS kernel also backport a lot of features that are not in current
2.6 LTS (although I am not quite sure if kABI is different, although it
might since RHEL also patch its glibc);
4. I do not see a good approach to tie kernel support to an specific
organization where the current support already exists.
And again I also do not see this very specific openvz.org issue as a
compelling reason to avoid such minimum kernel change.