Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes: > Hm, that's interesting. The version currently in unstable pulls up the > changes in Ubuntu so that it would build with 2.6.38 in Ubuntu, and those > apparently worked fine. I wonder what's different.
AFAICT, disabling the big lock is an experimental option which still requires patching some in-tree code, so I guess only Debian chose to go that route so far. > Yeah, it looks like the global kernel lock code was removed from the 1.6 > branch a long time ago. Presumably not early enough for backporting the relevant changes to be worth considering, though. :-/ > We're hopefully fairly close to a 1.6 final, and some major bugs are still > being fixed, so I'd rather wait for upstream to bless 1.6 before uploading > it to unstable. But I probably don't have much time left, given that > 2.6.38 is now in unstable. I was hoping that the Ubuntu patches would > tide us over.... That's fair. One could make a reasonable case for letting a solid 1.6 release candidate in, but if major bug fixes are still on the way, holding off may well be the lesser evil; the resulting breakage is at least immediate and obvious, and users who insist on 2.6.38 can either build it themselves with the big lock reenabled or substitute Ubuntu's version for now. Thanks for following up. -- Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org) http://www.mit.edu/~amu/ | http://stuff.mit.edu/cgi/finger/?a...@monk.mit.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
