HEADS-UP: starting to commit linuxolator (SoC 2006) changes...

[Julian Elischer]

Alexander Leidinger wrote:

> Quoting Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy at optushome.com.au> (from Thu, 17 Aug  
> 2006 18:05:33 +1000):
>
>> On Wed, 2006-Aug-16 13:25:39 +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
>>
>>> Quoting Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy at optushome.com.au> (from Wed, 16 Aug
>>> 2006 19:06:53 +1000):
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 2006-Aug-16 00:23:28 +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For the curious ones: the code is "activated" by changing osrelease,
>>>>
>> ...
>>
>>> It's mentioned in /usr/ports/UPDATING (as in: make sure you don't
>>> change the default osrelease).
>>
>>
>> I found it by grepping for osrelease.  The comment is buried in
>> the FC4 update and not immediately obvious.  I was thinking of
>> it being documented in (eg) linux(4).
>
>
> Yes, it is mentioned for those which did change it back in the days  
> where it didn't changed anything in glibc and updated to fc4. 
> lang/icc  was a bit picky about the compat.linux.* sysctls a little 
> bit longer.
>
> Anyone with enough mdoc-fu listening for the linux(4) change?
>
>>> The intend is to change the default value to 2.6.x when the code is
>>> stable enough.
>>
>>
>> What is the plan for the 2.4.x code?  Will it be maintained (in which
>> case, this should be documented), left to rot or explicitly deleted?
>
>
> The 2.6 code is an extension to the 2.4 code. The 2.6 one is needed  
> for newer FC releases. So the current sysctl stuff is just a 
> disabling  of some code in some syscalls. The goal is get stable 2.6 
> extensions  and to forget about the 2.4 downgrade (removing the part 
> which  disables some stuff currently, the rest is needed).
>
> So no need to document the effects of some specific values for  
> osrelease, it's enough to say that only the default is supported, a  
> non default value may cause unwanted behavior and bugreports should 
> be  submitted with default values.


having the ability to run older linux may be a good thing..how good is 
their backwards compatibility.. I've heard of spme people being stuck on old
versions of linux..  maybe the sysctl could stay if there is a problem 
to solve.


>
> Bye,
> Alexander.
>