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.