Re: earliest supported kernel is 2.6.32 now

2011-05-16 Thread Russell Coker
On Tue, 17 May 2011, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:42:52PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote: > > > In general there is no requirement to reuse the dom0 kernel as your > > > domU kernel, although I appreciate that some hosting providers may add > > > that sort of requirement (or a sim

Re: earliest supported kernel is 2.6.32 now

2011-05-16 Thread Ian Campbell
On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 23:42 +1000, Russell Coker wrote: > On Mon, 16 May 2011, Ian Campbell wrote: > > > There is also a cost to running old versions of packages to match the > > > kernel that you are compelled to use. > > > > > > EG if you have a RHEL5 system running as a Xen Dom0 it's probably

Re: earliest supported kernel is 2.6.32 now

2011-05-16 Thread Bastian Blank
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:42:52PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote: > > In general there is no requirement to reuse the dom0 kernel as your domU > > kernel, although I appreciate that some hosting providers may add that > > sort of requirement (or a similar requirement to use one of a blessed > > set of

Re: earliest supported kernel is 2.6.32 now

2011-05-16 Thread Russell Coker
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Ian Campbell wrote: > > There is also a cost to running old versions of packages to match the > > kernel that you are compelled to use. > > > > EG if you have a RHEL5 system running as a Xen Dom0 it's probably not > > going to be a desired upgrade option to use Debian/Squeeze

Re: earliest supported kernel is 2.6.32 now

2011-05-16 Thread Ian Campbell
On Sun, 2011-05-15 at 21:14 +1000, Russell Coker wrote: > On Sat, 14 May 2011, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > Backward-compatibility has a cost, sometimes substantial. > > > > I don't think packages in testing/unstable should be expected to support > > any kernel version older than that in stable. It'

Re: earliest supported kernel is 2.6.32 now

2011-05-15 Thread Russell Coker
On Sat, 14 May 2011, Ben Hutchings wrote: > Backward-compatibility has a cost, sometimes substantial. > > I don't think packages in testing/unstable should be expected to support > any kernel version older than that in stable. It's the same same rule we > apply to any other dependency. There is

Re: earliest supported kernel is 2.6.32 now

2011-05-13 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 12:23:56AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 11:50:58PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > From the udev 168-2 changelog: > > > > * Earliest kernel release supported raised from 2.6.27 to 2.6.32 due > > to the usage of accept4(2). > > > > So you may w

Re: earliest supported kernel is 2.6.32 now

2011-05-13 Thread Adam Borowski
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 11:50:58PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > From the udev 168-2 changelog: > > * Earliest kernel release supported raised from 2.6.27 to 2.6.32 due > to the usage of accept4(2). > > So you may want to clean up your packages to remove all code needed for > compatibility w