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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
