From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: David Woodhouse Cc: Embedded Linux PPC list Subject: Re: 2.4 versus 2.6 patches From: Wolfgang Denk Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 26 Jul 2004 10:27:52 EDT." Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 19:16:03 +0200 Message-Id: <20040726171608.12880C109F@atlas.denx.de> Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: In message you wrote: > > Deployment if you're already almost ready to ship is sane enough, I > suppose -- but to actually put more effort into 2.4 wouldn't make much > sense. It depends on your requirements. If you need a kernel that is (1) stable and working [2.6 is still pretty much useless for example on 8xx systems], (2) small [2.6 is usually >= 20% bigger than 2.4], and/or (3) fast [2.6 is usually >= 10% slower than 2.4], then 2.4 may be the better choice. > Because nobody's really that interested in it. For what it's worth, I've > abandoned all pretence of continuing to support 2.4 in the MTD/JFFS2 CVS David, you can do what you want. But it is not up to you to decide what other people are doing. I declare that there ARE people who are interested in 2.4 kernel - both for maintenance and development work. Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87 Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88 Email: wd@denx.de Another megabytes the dust. ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/