This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Requiring Linux 3.2 for glibc 2.24
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Aurelien Jarno <aurelien at aurel32 dot net>
- Cc: <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 15:55:43 +0000
- 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> <20160209143631 dot GA29366 at aurel32 dot net>
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.
Joseph S. Myers