[arch-dev-public] [arch-general] [signoff] udev-145-1

Tobias Powalowski t.powa at gmx.de
Mon Aug 10 08:39:21 EDT 2009

Am Montag 03 August 2009 schrieb Roman Kyrylych:
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 16:46, Dan McGee<dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Jan de Groot<jan at jgc.homeip.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 15:47 +0300, Roman Kyrylych wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 14:13, Daenyth Blank<daenyth+arch at gmail.com> 
> >>> > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 04:39, Roman Kyrylych<roman.kyrylych at gmail.com> 
> >>> >> I don't really understand why minimal .25 kernel is a problem?
> >>> >> Aren't we the bleeding edge distro?
> >>> >
> >>> > For some virtualized providers (slicehost off the top of my head),
> >>> > they use their own kernel that isn't as up to date. This update would
> >>> > break all such hosted Arch servers.
> >>>
> >>> IgnorePkg?
> >>> And how often are such hosted Arch servers updated anyway?
> >>> And we do not support custom kernels officially anyway.
> >>>
> >>> What I'm trying to say is that holding updates because of this is not
> >>> acceptable IMO.
> >
> > I didn't say "holding updates", I just wanted to either find a
> > workaround if available so as not to break user systems completely.
> I didn't mean you said that. My second sentence was more general.
> >> Sidenote2: This udev bump from minimal kernel version from 2.6.22 to
> >> 2.6.25 (mandatory) because use the signalfd(). An announce required?
> >
> > Wowzers, I'm not so sure we want to do that.
> We don't have a choice (at least I don't see it).
> I mean - suppose we patch udev to not use signalfd so it runs on 2.6.22
> (which is a very bad idea IMO, but let's suppose)
> - we will have to bump our minimal kernel requirement at some time anyway,
> so I don't see a benefit in trying to workaround the version bump.
> I think people who use old kernels know what they are doing,
> and are smart enough to check the list of updates
> and read newsitems on the main site (which we should post about this)
> I don't think anyone blindly runs -Syu on a production server via ssh.
> > Ever had to rescue a remote server because sshd didn't come up?
> I don't understand what your example has to do with this (udev vs sshd).
> > Not supporting custom kernels *officially*? Of course. Not supporting
> > custom kernels? Did something change in the past 4 years that I
> > missed? I thought Arch was always a bit of a DIY distro, it's rather
> > shortsighted to assume one kernel fits everyone...
> I didn't mean we should support only the latest and greatest default
> kernel. Rather I meant that we don't provide official out-of-the-box
> support for running on quite old or heavily customized kernels,
> so some user changes may be required,
> like in this case - adding udev to IgnorePkg
> until the hosting provider will update their kernel.
> I think such server could safely use old initscripts and udev
> and only update the required software like apache
> (due to security issues or bugfixes).
> P.S.: Since text cannot transfer intonation, I'd like to notice that
> my comments in this thread are by no means flaming.
> Just expressing some thoughts.
Announcement on NEWS page was posted some time ago, shall we move it in?

Tobias Powalowski
Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa)
tpowa at archlinux.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20090810/31178203/attachment.pgp>

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list