FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 05-05-2011, 05:58 PM
Tom Gundersen
 
Default Minimal kernel version

Hi guys,

As far as I understand the minimal kernel version we support is
2.6.27. This is at least due to glibc and udev.

I thought it would be worth noting that as of its next release udev
will require kernel version 2.6.32:
<http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/hotplug/udev.git;a=commit;h=67a77c8bf299f6264f001677becd05 6316ebce2f>.

Maybe this could be an opportunity to raise the requirement across the
board, and also to make a news item about this?

Cheers,

Tom
 
Old 05-05-2011, 06:20 PM
Dan McGee
 
Default Minimal kernel version

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> As far as I understand the minimal kernel version we support is
> 2.6.27. This is at least due to glibc and udev.
>
> I thought it would be worth noting that as of its next release udev
> will require kernel version 2.6.32:
> <http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/hotplug/udev.git;a=commit;h=67a77c8bf299f6264f001677becd05 6316ebce2f>.
>
> Maybe this could be an opportunity to raise the requirement across the
> board, and also to make a news item about this?

Not to be the thorn in the side of progress, but we can't keep
changing this every six months on a whim unless we truly don't care
about some semblance of stability and uptime. We last changed this
less than 5 months ago[1], and before that, 21 months ago[2]. I think
there needs to be an extremely valid reason someone can't have a
machine with uptime approaching a year in duration. I'm sure there are
people running pre-2.6.32 kernels out there even though we don't
currently package one- it was only released in December 2009, so 18
months ago.

So obviously if you update udev on your system, you should be expected
to run a kernel that satisfies the requirement, but I don't think we
should force people to jump from the 2.6.27 level we established only
5 months ago just yet if at all possible.

-Dan

[1] http://www.archlinux.org/news/minimum-required-kernel-version-increased-1/
[2] http://www.archlinux.org/news/udev-minimum-kernel-version/
 
Old 05-05-2011, 07:06 PM
Stéphane Gaudreault
 
Default Minimal kernel version

Le 5 mai 2011 14:20:31, Dan McGee a écrit :
> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no> wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > As far as I understand the minimal kernel version we support is
> > 2.6.27. This is at least due to glibc and udev.
> >
> > I thought it would be worth noting that as of its next release udev
> > will require kernel version 2.6.32:
> > <http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/hotplug/udev.git;a=commit;h=67a77c8bf299f
> > 6264f001677becd056316ebce2f>.
> >
> > Maybe this could be an opportunity to raise the requirement across the
> > board, and also to make a news item about this?
>
> Not to be the thorn in the side of progress, but we can't keep
> changing this every six months on a whim unless we truly don't care
> about some semblance of stability and uptime. We last changed this
> less than 5 months ago[1], and before that, 21 months ago[2]. I think
> there needs to be an extremely valid reason someone can't have a
> machine with uptime approaching a year in duration. I'm sure there are
> people running pre-2.6.32 kernels out there even though we don't
> currently package one- it was only released in December 2009, so 18
> months ago.
>
> So obviously if you update udev on your system, you should be expected
> to run a kernel that satisfies the requirement, but I don't think we
> should force people to jump from the 2.6.27 level we established only
> 5 months ago just yet if at all possible.
>
> -Dan
>
> [1]
> http://www.archlinux.org/news/minimum-required-kernel-version-increased-1/
> [2] http://www.archlinux.org/news/udev-minimum-kernel-version/

I might be wrong on this because I do not have all the information, but I
think that one of the consequence of our choice to set minimum version to
2.6.27 is that we need to patch the glibc to avoid a threading issue on
x86_64[1]. This problem do not seems to happen if glibc is builded for 2.6.32.

Again, I do not have all information on this. Allan might have a more informed
opinion on this issue.

Stéphane

[1] http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12403
 
Old 05-05-2011, 07:26 PM
Tom Gundersen
 
Default Minimal kernel version

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not to be the thorn in the side of progress, but we can't keep
> changing this every six months on a whim unless we truly don't care
> about some semblance of stability and uptime.

Side-note: Changing the minimum regularly does not mean that people
need to upgrade regularly. Hopefully the people who were forced to
upgrade before, did not upgrade to the new minimum, but to something
relatively recent. In other words, the people who upgraded five months
ago, should be good to go for at least another year (fingers
crossed).

> So obviously if you update udev on your system, you should be expected
> to run a kernel that satisfies the requirement

This was exactly my concern. If people hold back udev to avoid
updating the kernel, they would also need to hold back other packages
that might depend on changes in udev, and so on. Which packages to
hold back will probably not be at all clear (as backwards
compatibility might be unintentionally broken). What do we recommend
people to do in these situations?

Cheers,

Tom
 
Old 05-06-2011, 12:23 AM
Allan McRae
 
Default Minimal kernel version

On 06/05/11 05:06, Stéphane Gaudreault wrote:

Le 5 mai 2011 14:20:31, Dan McGee a écrit :

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Tom Gundersen<teg@jklm.no> wrote:

Hi guys,

As far as I understand the minimal kernel version we support is
2.6.27. This is at least due to glibc and udev.

I thought it would be worth noting that as of its next release udev
will require kernel version 2.6.32:
<http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/hotplug/udev.git;a=commit;h=67a77c8bf299f
6264f001677becd056316ebce2f>.

Maybe this could be an opportunity to raise the requirement across the
board, and also to make a news item about this?


Not to be the thorn in the side of progress, but we can't keep
changing this every six months on a whim unless we truly don't care
about some semblance of stability and uptime. We last changed this
less than 5 months ago[1], and before that, 21 months ago[2]. I think
there needs to be an extremely valid reason someone can't have a
machine with uptime approaching a year in duration. I'm sure there are
people running pre-2.6.32 kernels out there even though we don't
currently package one- it was only released in December 2009, so 18
months ago.

So obviously if you update udev on your system, you should be expected
to run a kernel that satisfies the requirement, but I don't think we
should force people to jump from the 2.6.27 level we established only
5 months ago just yet if at all possible.

-Dan

[1]
http://www.archlinux.org/news/minimum-required-kernel-version-increased-1/
[2] http://www.archlinux.org/news/udev-minimum-kernel-version/


I might be wrong on this because I do not have all the information, but I
think that one of the consequence of our choice to set minimum version to
2.6.27 is that we need to patch the glibc to avoid a threading issue on
x86_64[1]. This problem do not seems to happen if glibc is builded for 2.6.32.

Again, I do not have all information on this. Allan might have a more informed
opinion on this issue.

Stéphane

[1] http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12403



That is a small issue that is fixed and no longer a concern, so it not a
reason to increase minimum required kernel version.


When I increased the required version to 2.6.27, I selected that version
because that was the latest supported upstream (i.e. by the kernel
developers). That situation still has not changed.


I will note that Fedora (and RHEL6?) uses 2.6.32 as their minimum.

Allan
 
Old 05-06-2011, 07:57 AM
Thomas Bächler
 
Default Minimal kernel version

Am 05.05.2011 20:20, schrieb Dan McGee:
>> Maybe this could be an opportunity to raise the requirement across the
>> board, and also to make a news item about this?
>
> Not to be the thorn in the side of progress, but we can't keep
> changing this every six months on a whim unless we truly don't care
> about some semblance of stability and uptime.

Either we are bleeding edge or we aren't. udev doesn't work completely
with kernels older than 2.6.32, and we want the latest version. Not
updating udev is not an option for me.
 
Old 05-06-2011, 04:08 PM
Andreas Radke
 
Default Minimal kernel version

Am Fri, 06 May 2011 09:57:12 +0200
schrieb Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org>:

> Am 05.05.2011 20:20, schrieb Dan McGee:
> >> Maybe this could be an opportunity to raise the requirement across
> >> the board, and also to make a news item about this?
> >
> > Not to be the thorn in the side of progress, but we can't keep
> > changing this every six months on a whim unless we truly don't care
> > about some semblance of stability and uptime.
>
> Either we are bleeding edge or we aren't. udev doesn't work completely
> with kernels older than 2.6.32, and we want the latest version. Not
> updating udev is not an option for me.
>

Is there no udev-compat anymore to work with older kernels?

-Andy
 
Old 05-06-2011, 05:00 PM
Thomas Bächler
 
Default Minimal kernel version

Am 06.05.2011 18:08, schrieb Andreas Radke:
>> Either we are bleeding edge or we aren't. udev doesn't work completely
>> with kernels older than 2.6.32, and we want the latest version. Not
>> updating udev is not an option for me.
>>
>
> Is there no udev-compat anymore to work with older kernels?
>
> -Andy

The commit references in Tom's mail does not include any changes to the
compat rules.
 
Old 05-06-2011, 06:04 PM
Tom Gundersen
 
Default Minimal kernel version

On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Andreas Radke <a.radke@arcor.de> wrote:
> Am Fri, 06 May 2011 09:57:12 +0200
> schrieb Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org>:
>
>> Am 05.05.2011 20:20, schrieb Dan McGee:
>> >> Maybe this could be an opportunity to raise the requirement across
>> >> the board, and also to make a news item about this?
>> >
>> > Not to be the thorn in the side of progress, but we can't keep
>> > changing this every six months on a whim unless we truly don't care
>> > about some semblance of stability and uptime.
>>
>> Either we are bleeding edge or we aren't. udev doesn't work completely
>> with kernels older than 2.6.32, and we want the latest version. Not
>> updating udev is not an option for me.
>>
>
> Is there no udev-compat anymore to work with older kernels?

There is, but it no longer contains rules to support kernels pre
2.6.32 (in fact it only contains a few rules to support 2.6.32, 2.6.33
and newer does not need it).

Cheers,

Tom
 
Old 05-07-2011, 05:53 AM
Tobias Powalowski
 
Default Minimal kernel version

Am Freitag 06 Mai 2011 schrieb Tom Gundersen:
> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Andreas Radke <a.radke@arcor.de> wrote:
> > Am Fri, 06 May 2011 09:57:12 +0200
> >
> > schrieb Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org>:
> >> Am 05.05.2011 20:20, schrieb Dan McGee:
> >> >> Maybe this could be an opportunity to raise the requirement across
> >> >> the board, and also to make a news item about this?
> >> >
> >> > Not to be the thorn in the side of progress, but we can't keep
> >> > changing this every six months on a whim unless we truly don't care
> >> > about some semblance of stability and uptime.
> >>
> >> Either we are bleeding edge or we aren't. udev doesn't work completely
> >> with kernels older than 2.6.32, and we want the latest version. Not
> >> updating udev is not an option for me.
> >
> > Is there no udev-compat anymore to work with older kernels?
>
> There is, but it no longer contains rules to support kernels pre
> 2.6.32 (in fact it only contains a few rules to support 2.6.32, 2.6.33
> and newer does not need it).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom
If someone has the need to run older kernels, those should be smooth enough to
keep an older udev version.
I agree with Thomas, we are bleeding egde and if users need stuff that is older
than half a yea, you should be able to manage this yourself.

greetings
tpowa
--
Tobias Powalowski
Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa)
http://www.archlinux.org
tpowa@archlinux.org
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:15 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org