arch fun.

Jon Masters jcm at redhat.com
Fri Feb 6 17:44:28 UTC 2009


On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 12:29 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 12:23:51PM -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
>  > On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 11:39 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
>  > 
>  > > It's still the same upgrade problem.
>  > > Someone will be going from 'kernel' with no PAE to 'kernel' with PAE,
>  > > and on a CPU without PAE, that means they can't boot any more.
>  > > In that situation they need to go 'kernel'(i686) to 'kernel'(i586)
>  > > which aparently the tools already handle.
>  > 
>  > I'm missing something...
>  > 
>  > Is there really that much additional work that we can't keep the UP/SMP
>  > kernel around for the time being?
> 
> ?? We haven't shipped a UP x86 kernel in about 3 years.

Er...smp alternatives counts to me as UP. Shame there's no equiv. for
PAE.

>  > If PAE were default installed in F11
>  > for everyone and it were publicly announced that support for non-PAE was
>  > dying in F12
> 
> Part of the problem with that idea is that the Pentium M laptops without PAE
> aren't that old. This might upset quite a few people.

If "kernel" must die, isn't there some way to make the i586 kernel
replace it? I think that's what notting was getting at - kind of how we
have i686 on i386 for the kernel now anyway...but I guess it gets more
involved if the flavo[u]rs are not on the same arch - was that your
complaint Bill?

Jon.





More information about the Fedora-kernel-list mailing list