Why is ide-scsi not provided in Arjan's 2.6 kernel?

[Xose Vazquez Perez]

*moved to devel-list*

I hope to see a 2.4.x kernel in FC2 _too_. Otherwise it will be a lame
distribution.

What would be lame about not including an old kernel?

If 2.6 doesn't bring _all functional features_ that 2.4 has, it will
be necessary a backup 2.4 kernel.
Today must-fix.txt and should-fix.txt(PRI1) are big lists.

Including multiple kernel versions (especially from different major
release trains) greatly increases complexity for very little gain.

Mandrake 9.2 and SuSE 9.0 bring 2.6 & 2.4 kernels. If they are able to do it,
why not Fedora ?

:-?

--
HTML mails are going to trash automagically

[Chris Adams]

Post by Xose Vazquez Perez

I hope to see a 2.4.x kernel in FC2 _too_. Otherwise it will be a lame
distribution.

What would be lame about not including an old kernel?

If 2.6 doesn't bring _all functional features_ that 2.4 has, it will
be necessary a backup 2.4 kernel.

Since new versions almost never have everything old versions had (some
things do get lost because nobody cares enough to fix them), that
requirement would hold things back forever. Heck, FC1 doesn't have some
thing from RHL9; that doesn't mean FC1 won't replace RHL9.

Post by Xose Vazquez Perez
Today must-fix.txt and should-fix.txt(PRI1) are big lists.

And FC2 is around 5 months away; there's a lot of time to get things in
shape.

Post by Xose Vazquez Perez

Including multiple kernel versions (especially from different major
release trains) greatly increases complexity for very little gain.

Mandrake 9.2 and SuSE 9.0 bring 2.6 & 2.4 kernels. If they are able to do it,
why not Fedora ?

I don't know about SuSE, but I believe Mandrake runs 2.4 and then
includes a "preview" 2.6 kernel, like RHL 7.0 ran 2.2 and included a 2.4
kernel in a preview directory.

Having a new kernel as a "preview" is a far sight from having two major
"supported" kernel releases. It might have been possible to have a 2.6
preview for FC1, but it wasn't really quite ready. By FC2, the general
expectation will be 2.6.

If someone wants to maintain a 2.4 kernel for FC2, they could do it as
part of Fedora Alternatives or Extras.

[Jean Francois Martinez]

Post by Xose Vazquez Perez
*moved to devel-list*

I hope to see a 2.4.x kernel in FC2 _too_. Otherwise it will be a lame
distribution.

What would be lame about not including an old kernel?

If 2.6 doesn't bring _all functional features_ that 2.4 has, it will
be necessary a backup 2.4 kernel.
Today must-fix.txt and should-fix.txt(PRI1) are big lists.

Including multiple kernel versions (especially from different major
release trains) greatly increases complexity for very little gain.

Mandrake 9.2 and SuSE 9.0 bring 2.6 & 2.4 kernels. If they are able to do it,
why not Fedora ?

Providing 2.6 kernels nowadays is demagogic and wrong: every stable
kernel I have known (and I have know them since 1.0) has had teething
problems in the first weeks or months of existence. And here it is
worse since we are talking of a pre-release version.

My criteria for a kernel being "distribution-ready" is if Linus has
opened development for the next version. Until he has done that it
means he thinks there are too many bugs waiting to be squashed for
allowing people spending their time in a new kernel.

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Post by Jean Francois Martinez
Providing 2.6 kernels nowadays is demagogic and wrong: every stable
kernel I have known (and I have know them since 1.0) has had teething
problems in the first weeks or months of existence. And here it is
worse since we are talking of a pre-release version.

And we are talking about a pre-release distribution. So what's the
problem ?

2.6.0 final will be out way before FC2.

Cheers,

[Xose Vazquez Perez]

Post by Jean Francois Martinez
My criteria for a kernel being "distribution-ready" is if Linus has
opened development for the next version. Until he has done that it
means he thinks there are too many bugs waiting to be squashed for
allowing people spending their time in a new kernel.

2.6.0-pre is a different story what was 2.4.0-pre. There is a lot of
people working on it ( http://www.osdl.org/projects/26lnxstblztn/results/ )
The 2.6 _core_ will be stable, but it won't have _all_ features as 2.4
has today. I hope to be mistaken ;-)

But

[Felipe Alfaro Solana]

Post by Xose Vazquez Perez

Post by Jean Francois Martinez
My criteria for a kernel being "distribution-ready" is if Linus has
opened development for the next version. Until he has done that it
means he thinks there are too many bugs waiting to be squashed for
allowing people spending their time in a new kernel.

2.6.0-pre is a different story what was 2.4.0-pre. There is a lot of
people working on it ( http://www.osdl.org/projects/26lnxstblztn/results/ )
The 2.6 _core_ will be stable, but it won't have _all_ features as 2.4
has today. I hope to be mistaken ;-)

You're not mistaken, but no so many features will be left out of 2.6.
Some of them can be easily replaced by newer ones (for example, IDE-SCSI
was used mainly for CD-Burning, but now you can use direct ATAPI
CD-Burning), and some will be superseded by newer versions, like LVM2 or
EVMS.

For mainstream usage, I think 2.6 is ready for most of the people out
there.