* Steinar H. Gunderson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060103 23:37]: > On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:45:16PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: > > 2.6.8 is not an optimal kernel, but largely due to timing (i.e. SATA just > > starting to get implemented). > > The real question (IMHO) is probably whether it would be possible to get > newer kernels into volatile. I'd guess "probably not", given that stuff like > udev tends to break every other release, but it's a tempting thought -- the > sarge machine here seems to run miles better with a 2.6.14 backport (yay for > backports.org) than it ever did with 2.6.8 (which seems to have a really > really unstable USB layer).
I think it would be possible, but it requires some help from the kernel team side - and of course I can understand if they don't want to take care of yet another kernel version. Please see the discussion starting at http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2005/12/msg00678.html Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
