Mailing List Archive

On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 11:57:48AM -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> As many of you may know, the Gentoo Kernel team has stopped supporting
> our last 2.4 kernel sources in the tree, gentoo-sources-2.4. Since we
> no longer have an officially supported 2.4 kernel on alpha/sparc/x86, I
> have deprecated the 2.4 profiles for those architectures. The 2.4
> kernel has had a good run with Gentoo. It is a shame to see it go, but
> we're finding more and more applications are requiring hal/udev or other
> 2.6-only requirements, making for a hard time for teams like Gnome. The
> profiles are slated to be removed on or after November 1st. There is no
> "upgrade path" as we will no longer have 2.4 profiles, but it should be
> a fairly smooth transition to any 2.6 profile.

It's a shame that you've done that BEFORE asking the relevant arch
teams. Thats a REAL BIG SHAME.

Consider your changes on the alpha profiles reverted as soon as I get to
my machine.

- ferdy

--
Fernando J. Pereda Garcimartín
20BB BDC3 761A 4781 E6ED ED0B 0A48 5B0C 60BD 28D4

On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 09:08:34PM +0200, Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 11:57:48AM -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > As many of you may know, the Gentoo Kernel team has stopped supporting
> > our last 2.4 kernel sources in the tree, gentoo-sources-2.4. Since we
> > no longer have an officially supported 2.4 kernel on alpha/sparc/x86, I
> > have deprecated the 2.4 profiles for those architectures. The 2.4
> > kernel has had a good run with Gentoo. It is a shame to see it go, but
> > we're finding more and more applications are requiring hal/udev or other
> > 2.6-only requirements, making for a hard time for teams like Gnome. The
> > profiles are slated to be removed on or after November 1st. There is no
> > "upgrade path" as we will no longer have 2.4 profiles, but it should be
> > a fairly smooth transition to any 2.6 profile.
>
> It's a shame that you've done that BEFORE asking the relevant arch
> teams. Thats a REAL BIG SHAME.
>
> Consider your changes on the alpha profiles reverted as soon as I get to
> my machine.

And now everything is being friendly sorted out between Chris and the
alpha arch team. Sorry everybody (and specially Chris) for the
over-reaction, but I felt it was needed.

- ferdy

--
Fernando J. Pereda Garcimartín
20BB BDC3 761A 4781 E6ED ED0B 0A48 5B0C 60BD 28D4

On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 21:21 +0200, Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 09:08:34PM +0200, Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 11:57:48AM -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > As many of you may know, the Gentoo Kernel team has stopped supporting
> > > our last 2.4 kernel sources in the tree, gentoo-sources-2.4. Since we
> > > no longer have an officially supported 2.4 kernel on alpha/sparc/x86, I
> > > have deprecated the 2.4 profiles for those architectures. The 2.4
> > > kernel has had a good run with Gentoo. It is a shame to see it go, but
> > > we're finding more and more applications are requiring hal/udev or other
> > > 2.6-only requirements, making for a hard time for teams like Gnome. The
> > > profiles are slated to be removed on or after November 1st. There is no
> > > "upgrade path" as we will no longer have 2.4 profiles, but it should be
> > > a fairly smooth transition to any 2.6 profile.
> >
> > It's a shame that you've done that BEFORE asking the relevant arch
> > teams. Thats a REAL BIG SHAME.
> >
> > Consider your changes on the alpha profiles reverted as soon as I get to
> > my machine.
>
> And now everything is being friendly sorted out between Chris and the
> alpha arch team. Sorry everybody (and specially Chris) for the
> over-reaction, but I felt it was needed.

Let this be a lesson to everyone. Just because you discussed it a
couple months ago doesn't necessarily mean:

a) it is still wanted
-or-
b) it is still valid

So remember, kids, always check with your friendly local arch teams
before you poke around in their playgrounds!

--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

On Monday 27 August 2007, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 21:21 +0200, Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 09:08:34PM +0200, Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 11:57:48AM -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > > As many of you may know, the Gentoo Kernel team has stopped
> > > > supporting our last 2.4 kernel sources in the tree,
> > > > gentoo-sources-2.4. Since we no longer have an officially supported
> > > > 2.4 kernel on alpha/sparc/x86, I have deprecated the 2.4 profiles for
> > > > those architectures. The 2.4 kernel has had a good run with Gentoo.
> > > > It is a shame to see it go, but we're finding more and more
> > > > applications are requiring hal/udev or other 2.6-only requirements,
> > > > making for a hard time for teams like Gnome. The profiles are slated
> > > > to be removed on or after November 1st. There is no "upgrade path"
> > > > as we will no longer have 2.4 profiles, but it should be a fairly
> > > > smooth transition to any 2.6 profile.
> > >
> > > It's a shame that you've done that BEFORE asking the relevant arch
> > > teams. Thats a REAL BIG SHAME.
> > >
> > > Consider your changes on the alpha profiles reverted as soon as I get
> > > to my machine.
> >
> > And now everything is being friendly sorted out between Chris and the
> > alpha arch team. Sorry everybody (and specially Chris) for the
> > over-reaction, but I felt it was needed.
>
> Let this be a lesson to everyone. Just because you discussed it a
> couple months ago doesn't necessarily mean:
>
> a) it is still wanted
> -or-
> b) it is still valid

so what is the 2.4 status then ?

> So remember, kids, always check with your friendly local arch teams
> before you poke around in their playgrounds!

also, cat poop has worms
-mike

On Monday 27 August 2007, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 21:21 +0200, Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 09:08:34PM +0200, Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 11:57:48AM -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > > As many of you may know, the Gentoo Kernel team has stopped
> > > > supporting our last 2.4 kernel sources in the tree,
> > > > gentoo-sources-2.4. Since we no longer have an officially supported
> > > > 2.4 kernel on alpha/sparc/x86, I have deprecated the 2.4 profiles for
> > > > those architectures. The 2.4 kernel has had a good run with Gentoo.
> > > > It is a shame to see it go, but we're finding more and more
> > > > applications are requiring hal/udev or other 2.6-only requirements,
> > > > making for a hard time for teams like Gnome. The profiles are slated
> > > > to be removed on or after November 1st. There is no "upgrade path"
> > > > as we will no longer have 2.4 profiles, but it should be a fairly
> > > > smooth transition to any 2.6 profile.
> > >
> > > It's a shame that you've done that BEFORE asking the relevant arch
> > > teams. Thats a REAL BIG SHAME.
> > >
> > > Consider your changes on the alpha profiles reverted as soon as I get
> > > to my machine.
> >
> > And now everything is being friendly sorted out between Chris and the
> > alpha arch team. Sorry everybody (and specially Chris) for the
> > over-reaction, but I felt it was needed.
>
> Let this be a lesson to everyone. Just because you discussed it a
> couple months ago doesn't necessarily mean:
>
> a) it is still wanted
> -or-
> b) it is still valid
>
> So remember, kids, always check with your friendly local arch teams
> before you poke around in their playgrounds!

On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 16:18 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > Let this be a lesson to everyone. Just because you discussed it a
> > couple months ago doesn't necessarily mean:
> >
> > a) it is still wanted
> > -or-
> > b) it is still valid
>
> so what is the 2.4 status then ?

Well, we still don't support it on sparc/x86. It is unsupported on
Alpha, too, unless you have one of the machines that 2.6 won't yet run
on, which have been discovered since my last speaking with the team and
is the reason why I screwed up. The idea is to leave it "deprecated" on
alpha without listing a removal date. About the only thing that I have
done here is removed the "November 1st" removal date. Now, maybe we'll
get lucky and can fix the kernel on those machines between now and then,
but if not, it isn't a big deal. It can stay for Alpha and not really
affect too many people. The Alpha machines aren't ones people would
typically use for a desktop, and this was hurried along because of some
requests from the GNOME team, who are hating the 2.4 profiles since
every GNOME since 2.16 has required 2.6/hal/udev to work properly. The
2.4 profiles are currently causing them headaches, and from my own
experiences, will continue to do so, as more and more things are going
to quit working on 2.4 as time goes on...

> > So remember, kids, always check with your friendly local arch teams
> > before you poke around in their playgrounds!
>
> also, cat poop has worms

Is that what those crunchy things are?

--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

On E, 2007-08-27 at 17:11 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 16:18 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > Let this be a lesson to everyone. Just because you discussed it a
> > > couple months ago doesn't necessarily mean:
> > >
> > > a) it is still wanted
> > > -or-
> > > b) it is still valid
> >
> > so what is the 2.4 status then ?
>
> Well, we still don't support it on sparc/x86. It is unsupported on
> Alpha, too, unless you have one of the machines that 2.6 won't yet run
> on, which have been discovered since my last speaking with the team and
> is the reason why I screwed up. The idea is to leave it "deprecated" on
> alpha without listing a removal date. About the only thing that I have
> done here is removed the "November 1st" removal date. Now, maybe we'll
> get lucky and can fix the kernel on those machines between now and then,
> but if not, it isn't a big deal. It can stay for Alpha and not really
> affect too many people. The Alpha machines aren't ones people would
> typically use for a desktop, and this was hurried along because of some
> requests from the GNOME team, who are hating the 2.4 profiles since
> every GNOME since 2.16 has required 2.6/hal/udev to work properly. The
> 2.4 profiles are currently causing them headaches, and from my own
> experiences, will continue to do so, as more and more things are going
> to quit working on 2.4 as time goes on...

The GNOME team is fine with the alpha profile possibly sticking around,
because we now have explicit permission from ferdy to gratuitously mask
and use.mask any GNOME (and I think even Xorg) things on that profile,
as also mentioned in bug #190194. We have no such agreement for the x86
profile afaik, so hopefully that profile will go away soon (1st Nov)
then.

Thanks for working on the deprecation,
--
Mart Raudsepp
Gentoo Developer
Mail: leio@gentoo.org
Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio

Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 16:18 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> Let this be a lesson to everyone. Just because you discussed it a
>>> couple months ago doesn't necessarily mean:
>>>
>>> a) it is still wanted
>>> -or-
>>> b) it is still valid
>> so what is the 2.4 status then ?
>
> Well, we still don't support it on sparc/x86. It is unsupported on
> Alpha, too, unless you have one of the machines that 2.6 won't yet run
> on, which have been discovered since my last speaking with the team and
> is the reason why I screwed up. The idea is to leave it "deprecated" on
> alpha without listing a removal date. About the only thing that I have
> done here is removed the "November 1st" removal date. Now, maybe we'll
> get lucky and can fix the kernel on those machines between now and then,
> but if not, it isn't a big deal. It can stay for Alpha and not really
> affect too many people. The Alpha machines aren't ones people would
> typically use for a desktop, and this was hurried along because of some
> requests from the GNOME team, who are hating the 2.4 profiles since
> every GNOME since 2.16 has required 2.6/hal/udev to work properly. The
> 2.4 profiles are currently causing them headaches, and from my own
> experiences, will continue to do so, as more and more things are going
> to quit working on 2.4 as time goes on...

Huh. So. Though I've been constantly working on cleaning up 2.4
kernel-related stuff and old profiles in the handbooks and other
documents, do any more changes need to be made, and if so, can I make
them now? (I'd really like to, lest I/everyone else forget about it
around November.) See especially
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-upgrading.xml for potential cleanups.