On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 11:29:42AM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> the most commonly installed packages today, and i had to build them for a
> dozen machines because stable was too far behind.
That's your own fault! If you are that experienced that you can build
you own packages you probably should kno
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 12:46:39AM +0200, Ari Makela wrote:
> John Lapeyre writes:
>
> >Maybe you find it easy. But you are relatively elite in debian
> > knowledge.
>
> I'm not a beginner. I even earn my living as an unix
> administrator. But I'm certainly not a unix guru.
>
> >I got a
John Lapeyre writes:
>Maybe you find it easy. But you are relatively elite in debian
> knowledge.
I'm not a beginner. I even earn my living as an unix
administrator. But I'm certainly not a unix guru.
>I got a notebook two months ago. The video, sound, and pcmcia are
> not supported by
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 11:02:04AM -0500, Mark Mealman wrote:
> > I really don't like unstable either, but I've pretty much abandoned the
> > stable tree as too behind the times back when slink was nearing freeze.
>
> Here's a serious question for you: which parts are too old on slink
> to per
Ari Makela ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Filip Van Raemdonck writes:
>
> > And if they have this new hardware, does it mean they should not be
> > able to run Debian then? If that's the case, better start rewriting
> > some documentation...
>
> What I ment was that it's quite easy to upgrade Slin
*Ari Makela wrote:
> Joey Hess writes:
> > Ari Makela wrote:
> > > series kernel or newer XFree86. Neither it's difficult to change the
> > > kernel on the rescue floppy if the provided kernel does not support
> > > hardware. If, Samba, for example, is not new enough, it's not
> > > difficult to fe
>>On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 11:02:04AM -0500, Mark
>>Mealman >wrote:
>> I really don't like unstable either, but I've
pretty >>much abandoned
>>the stable tree as too behind the times back when
>>slink was nearing
>>freeze.
>Here's a serious question for you: which parts are
too >old on slink
>to
On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 01:44:09AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Another point is that to an extent. being outmoded means that
> fewer people use Debian; and, that implies that Debian no longer
> meets their goals. Not having released for nearly 18 months (that's 3
> generations in in
On Tuesday 14 March 2000, at 12 h 38, the keyboard of Paul Seelig
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Depends on the functions one needs. But i'd like to generalize a bit:
> the included *apps* are far too old. Stuff like teTeX,
Since the teTeX in slink works fine and the one is potato is broken (a b
On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 01:44:09AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Not having released for nearly 18 months [...]
Which eighteen months do you refer to here?
--
enJoy -*/\*- don't even try to pronounce my first name
From: Hamish Moffatt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 11:02:04AM -0500, Mark Mealman wrote:
> > I really don't like unstable either, but I've pretty much
> > abandoned the stable tree as too behind the times back when
> > slink was nearing freeze.
>
> Here's a serious question
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 11:02:04AM -0500, Mark Mealman wrote:
> I really don't like unstable either, but I've pretty much abandoned the
> stable tree as too behind the times back when slink was nearing freeze.
Here's a serious question for you: which parts are too old on slink
to perform the func
Ari Makela wrote:
> Yes, I've installed Slink on an exotic AST server hardware. 2.0 didn't
> work. There was nothing that was hard to fix.
You're a better man than I.
--
see shy jo
Joey Hess writes:
> Ari Makela wrote:
> > series kernel or newer XFree86. Neither it's difficult to change the
> > kernel on the rescue floppy if the provided kernel does not support
> > hardware. If, Samba, for example, is not new enough, it's not
> > difficult to fetch the sources and compile it.
Ari Makela wrote:
> series kernel or newer XFree86. Neither it's difficult to change the
> kernel on the rescue floppy if the provided kernel does not support
> hardware. If, Samba, for example, is not new enough, it's not
> difficult to fetch the sources and compile it.
Have you ever actually tr
Filip Van Raemdonck writes:
> And if they have this new hardware, does it mean they should not be
> able to run Debian then? If that's the case, better start rewriting
> some documentation...
What I ment was that it's quite easy to upgrade Slink to use 2.2
series kernel or newer XFree86. Neither
>>"Ari" == Ari Makela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ari> Manoj Srivastava writes:
>> It is a quality of imlementation issue. If we are seriously
>> outmoded, we can't honestly say we are trying to be the best
>> distribution out there.
Ari> I must say I completely fail to understand your poin
> > We are all using potato, but we are shipping slink, keep that in mind.
> This is *wrong* as is wrong the claim that "slink is useless". The vast
> majority of the machines I manage are slinks.
You, but most of us are using potato in production systems.
Slink is a year old. It was released
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 12:50:22PM +0200, Ari Makela wrote:
>
> The point might be that Slink can be updated to use 2.2 kernels and
> other sofware which are not included. After all, quality software
> compiles usually quite effortlessy with ./configure, make and make
> install.
>
> All said, as
Just a short notice:
It is not possible to mount a newer ext2 filesystem with the slink
kernel-image.
Tamas
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 11:44:39PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Why is it bad having a stable kernel installed as default,
> > and a 2.4-pre kernel, marked as extra, with warning in the long
> > description, also in the distribution?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marcus Brinkmann) added:
Steve Greenland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Which is it? Do your friends want the newest bleeding edge stuff, or
> do they want stability? They can't have both at the same time! Oh, I
> see, the want the newest, but they want us to call it "stable".
I don't know.. IMO unstable is often more stab
> On 12-Mar-00, 10:56 (CST), Ron Farrer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I disagree! (surprise ;) I personally know of about ~4 people who were
> > turned away from slink because GNOME and KDE were so OLD. I personally
> > got around this by running potato (unstable then), but most people don't
> >
Just to interject a point of view from someone who is running the
"newest available hardware", I have an Athlon with a LeadTek GeForce DDR
video card, IBM 13.5gb S.M.A.R.T. drives, and sensors on all vital systems
(temps, rpms, and voltages). Potato is rock solid on the system - indeed,
potato and
From: Joey Hess [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I'd like to propose that we make a committment to getting an update to
> potato out within a month of the release of the 2.4 kernel or
> the release of potato, whichever comes last. (I did a similar thing for
> slink in a 3 week time-frame, and so I thi
From: Ron Farrer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Slink is called `stable' for a reason. It's not obsolete
> > for people who just want a stable distribution.
> >
> > Of course, it is obsolete for people who want a nice GNOME
> > (or especially KDE) environment, or those who own Athlons or other
>
8:25 -0800
> From: Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: David Bristel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Danger Will Robinson! Danger!
>
> David Bristel wrote:
> > The solution to this is that we ignore woody for the moment, and
l also be EASIER, since
not every single package will change between releases.
Dave Bristel
On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 15:53:41 -0600
> From: Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: d
>I'd like to propose that we make a committment to
>getting an update to
>potato out within a month of the release of the 2.4
>kernel or the
>release
>of potato, whichever comes last. (I did a similar
>thing for slink in a
>3
>week time-frame, and so I think this is a reasonable
>time-frame.)
>
>
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> It is a quality of imlementation issue. If we are seriously
> outmoded, we can't honestly say we are trying to be the best
> distribution out there.
I must say I completely fail to understand your point. Quality has not
very much to do with the fact how new t
On Sunday 12 March 2000, at 20 h 59, the keyboard of
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Nicol=E1s_Lichtmaier?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We are all using potato, but we are shipping slink, keep that in mind.
This is *wrong* as is wrong the claim that "slink is useless". The vast
majority of the machines I mana
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 09:39:52AM +1100, Drake Diedrich wrote:
> New hardware support seems to be a reasonable justification for allowing
> new versions into stable/frozen if there is also an older version there
> for the rest of us to fall back on in case it's a lemon.
This would be valid, howev
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 08:59:30PM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> We are all using potato, but we are shipping slink, keep that in mind.
last year we were...but now i would bet that half of us (or more) are
running woody, not potato.
imo, that says a lot about the quality of debian "unstable
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 03:53:41PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 12-Mar-00, 10:56 (CST), Ron Farrer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I disagree! (surprise ;) I personally know of about ~4 people who
> > were turned away from slink because GNOME and KDE were so OLD. I
> > personally got around t
Will Barton wrote:
> I like the idea a lot, but I have a question about version numbers. Potato
> is
> 2.2, so would you call 2.2.1? I'm assuming it would be more than just 2.2r2,
> etc.
Yes, that makes sense to me.
> It would be better to have these included in another release with our
> bl
Ben Collins wrote:
> > - X 4.0 drivers (but probably just X servers, to minimize changes; Branden
> > has huge reorganizations in mind for X)
>
> I'll agree with everything but this. X 4.0 stands to push aside support
> for some of our architectures.
My idea was just to include the driver packa
> This update would NOT be blessed as stable, it would be a semi-stable
> release with:
>
> - 2.4 kernel and support utilities
> - X 4.0 drivers (but probably just X servers, to minimize changes; Branden
> has huge reorganizations in mind for X)
>
> This would be a full Debian release, with a v
> - X 4.0 drivers (but probably just X servers, to minimize changes; Branden
> has huge reorganizations in mind for X)
I'll agree with everything but this. X 4.0 stands to push aside support
for some of our architectures. Atleast from what I have read, m68k and
sparc will not be supported under
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 06:18:25PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> I'd like to propose that we make a committment to getting an update to
> potato out within a month of the release of the 2.4 kernel or the release
> of potato, whichever comes last. (I did a similar thing for slink in a 3
> week time-fram
David Bristel wrote:
> The solution to this is that we ignore woody for the moment, and begin an all
> out effort to get the 2.4 kernel, XF4.0, and Apache 2.0 into Debian as STABLE.
> The work for these things can also incorporate the work needed to re-add the
> packages that were removed because o
Alisdair McDiarmid ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> What's the point in providing a briefly tested package of 2.4.0 when,
> by the time potato is out and burnt onto CDs, 2.4.x (where x > 0) will
> be available and people can compile their own kernel?
>
> The only reason for putting a 2.4.x kernel i
Steve Greenland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> Let's see, we're going to release potato (I *hope*) before kernel 2.4.0
> is released, but we're outdated. Hmmm. Somehow, I just don't get it.
>
what that means is that we've almost totally missed the 2.2 kernel. we're an
entire release cycle behind
> Which is it? Do your friends want the newest bleeding edge stuff, or
> do they want stability? They can't have both at the same time! Oh, I
> see, the want the newest, but they want us to call it "stable".
>
> Sigh.
>
> Why is is this basic distinction so hard to explain to people? Testing
> an
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 04:30:21PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Probably not. But That's why no one is talking about making
> 2.4 the default kernel. We package it up, we put i warnings, and we
> let it out for those of us who can really use it.
Those can really use it are those who
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 04:30:21PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Jason" == Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Jason> On 11 Mar 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> I've been running 2.3 kernels for a while now, and so have
> >> several people. Though it may not work as a defaul
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 04:30:21PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Jason" == Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Jason> On 11 Mar 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> I've been running 2.3 kernels for a while now, and so have
> >> several people. Though it may not work as a defaul
>>"Jason" == Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jason> On 11 Mar 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I've been running 2.3 kernels for a while now, and so have
>> several people. Though it may not work as a default ekrnel,
Jason> But can we integrate the necessary new changes to properl
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 06:27:41PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>
> Nothing wrong about that, if we don't go a long way to make additional
> changes in the various admin packages (isdn, pcmcia comes to mind).
>
> I was always a supporter of the latest and greatest kernel as a binary
> package i
On 12-Mar-00, 06:37 (CST), Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 11:14:56PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > The simple fact you are missing is that Debian is not an industry.
>
> Which doesn't mean that all arguments are not valid. As Manoj pointed out,
> being ou
On 12-Mar-00, 10:56 (CST), Ron Farrer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I disagree! (surprise ;) I personally know of about ~4 people who were
> turned away from slink because GNOME and KDE were so OLD. I personally
> got around this by running potato (unstable then), but most people don't
> WANT to ru
Stefan Ott ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> i still don't see why compiling a kernel on your own is a problem. i
> have never used a precompiled kernel, and i never had problems.
>
well, if you want to stay on the topic of which kernel to include, there's
something you must understand. there are nume
I have. In fact at one point I toyed with putting in a 2.3 kernel in.
But I'm thinking of the people who don't want to compile a new kernel
and listen to marketdroids for facts (eg. Debian is so out of date, it
still has a 2.0 kernel).
Jim Lynch wrote:
>
> If debian puts a 2.4 in, they will have
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 05:20:21PM +0100, Stefan Ott wrote:
> i still don't see why compiling a kernel on your own is a problem. i
> have never used a precompiled kernel, and i never had problems.
Install floppy kernel has to be able to work with your system. Beyond
that, yeah build your own.
--
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 01:37:01PM +0100, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 11:14:56PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > The simple fact you are missing is that Debian is not an industry.
>
> Which doesn't mean that all arguments are not valid. As Manoj pointed out,
> being outdated
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 11:44:39PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Marcus> Making last minute changes and rushing in x.0 versions of
> Marcus> critical software is just Plain Wrong. Especially the Linux
> Marcus> kernels are often
Josip Rodin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Slink is called `stable' for a reason. It's not obsolete for people who
> just want a stable distribution.
>
> Of course, it is obsolete for people who want a nice GNOME (or especially
> KDE) environment, or those who own Athlons or other hardware the kern
On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, Stefan said:
> i still don't see why compiling a kernel on your own is a problem. i
> have never used a precompiled kernel, and i never had problems.
Same here. IMHO, kernel-image packages are nice, but AFAIK, most users benifit
from recompiling the kernel at some point any
On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, Dave said:
> The solution to this is that we ignore woody for the moment, and begin an all
> out effort to get the 2.4 kernel, XF4.0, and Apache 2.0 into Debian as STABLE.
> The work for these things can also incorporate the work needed to re-add the
> packages that were remov
ar 2000, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
>
> > Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 01:02:42 -0500
> > From: Jacob Kuntz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> > Subject: Re: Danger Will Robinson! Danger!
> > Resent-Date: 12 Mar 2000 06:01:56 -
> > Resent-Fro
Bristel
On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 01:02:42 -0500
> From: Jacob Kuntz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Danger Will Robinson! Danger!
> Resent-Date: 12 Mar 2000 06:01:56 -
> Resent-From: debian-d
Dave Bristel
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 16:06:01 -0500
> From: Jacob Kuntz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Danger Will Robinson! Danger!
> Resent-Date: 11 Mar 2000 21:05:46 -000
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 11:41:10PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Josip> Why do we have to be a part of an industry? Debian would be
> Josip> commercial if we truely cared about the industry...
>
> It is a quality of imlementation issue. If we are seriously
> outmoded, we can't honest
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 11:14:56PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> The simple fact you are missing is that Debian is not an industry.
Which doesn't mean that all arguments are not valid. As Manoj pointed out,
being outdated is not making us reach our technical goals.
> Don't make the same mistak
On 11 Mar 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I've been running 2.3 kernels for a while now, and so have
> several people. Though it may not work as a default ekrnel,
But can we integrate the necessary new changes to properly support 2.4?
devfsd, the new firewall code, new PCMCIA, etc?
Jas
Hamish Moffatt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 04:06:01PM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> > our biggest handicap is that we're always a year behind everyone else. being
> > a year behind is suicide in any industry. being a year behind in an industry
>
> Have you listened to yourse
>>"Ben" == Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ben> What problems have we have with slink not being 2.2? I don't see
Ben> any. In fact, I protest profusely, since 2.4 will require a
Ben> great deal of work to work out the pcmcia kinks. There is
Ben> nothing wrong with 2.2. What I want is
>>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marcus> Making last minute changes and rushing in x.0 versions of
Marcus> critical software is just Plain Wrong. Especially the Linux
Marcus> kernels are often very unstable 'til x.12 or 14.
Why is it bad having a stable kerne
>>"Josip" == Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Josip> Why do we have to be a part of an industry? Debian would be
Josip> commercial if we truely cared about the industry...
It is a quality of imlementation issue. If we are seriously
outmoded, we can't honestly say we are trying t
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 22:32:34 +0100, Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Josip> On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 04:06:01PM -0500, Jacob Kuntz
Josip> wrote:
>> behind in an industry that moves as fast as open source
>> software, is idiocy.
Josip> Why do we have to be a part of an
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 04:06:01PM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> our biggest handicap is that we're always a year behind everyone else. being
> a year behind is suicide in any industry. being a year behind in an industry
Have you listened to yourself? Depends on what your aims are; if you want
to be
Alright, here's the warning so I don't see to be 'boasting' or
something similar: I work for TurboLinux as the lead distribution
engineer. Before most of debian-devel's technical skills, I am but a
neophyte. However, I would like to offer my point of view as
someone working in the "industry".
Y
At the place where I work they still have a number of machines running
an ancient Linux distribution called "FT" with the 1.2.13 kernel. The
machines work perfectly. In fact, they work a lot better than the Red
Hat 6.0 machines in some respects: there are a number of things (xfs,
lpr with Netware p
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> SCOTT FENTON <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I reccomend
>that, even if it's not the default, we include a 2.4 /binary/ in potato.
What about an update later?
I upgraded to potato (not in one step) because I needed some special
packages and did not want to compile them. But m
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 04:06:01PM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
>
> > IMHO, leaving out 2.4 is a bad idea. there were problems with 2.0 -> 2.2.
> > there was an incompatible build of lsof, as well as some networking
> > problems. i feel the same way about
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 06:30:40PM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> i don't really feel that this issue pertains specifically to the kernel, or
> X, or apache. it has much more to do with the fact that our release practice
> makes it impossible to have Good Software Now. we spend all of our time
> fixin
as i have always used and will be using in future tha unstable version
of Debian, i don't know about the problems in outdated software, but
many of my friends tend to complain that debian is outdated, and you
can't get all the Neat-O software for it, after i mention that they are
in unstable i can
Marcus Brinkmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 04:06:01PM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> > our biggest handicap is that we're always a year behind everyone else. being
> > a year behind is suicide in any industry.
>
> The simple fact you are missing is that Debian is not an ind
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 04:06:01PM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> IMHO, leaving out 2.4 is a bad idea. there were problems with 2.0 -> 2.2.
> there was an incompatible build of lsof, as well as some networking
> problems. i feel the same way about xf86 4.0 and apache 2.0. all of these
> releases are
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 04:06:01PM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> our biggest handicap is that we're always a year behind everyone else. being
> a year behind is suicide in any industry.
The simple fact you are missing is that Debian is not an industry.
Don't make the same mistakes as the industry. M
I've been using unstable (now frozen) since before potato, mostly
because there have been features I need only offered in unstable.
This started before the fantastic work began on point releases of
slink. So far I don't mind, because unstable has been stable enough
for me.
However, as a Debian us
paul wrote:
>
> I find it hard to believe that this issue arises every time a new kernel is
> released. It may be useful to some to run the latest, but for most it's not
> an issue. IMHO including the latest kernel is only useful as a marketing
> gimmick, and as Debian is non-commercial we don't
> IMHO, leaving out 2.4 is a bad idea. there were problems with 2.0 -> 2.2.
there are several indications that 2.4 proper won't be out till sometime in
the summer. i sure hope potato is out before then...
randolph
--
Debian Developer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.TauSq.org/
I find it hard to believe that this issue arises every time a new kernel is
released. It may be useful to some to run the latest, but for most it's not
an issue. IMHO including the latest kernel is only useful as a marketing
gimmick, and as Debian is non-commercial we don't need that kind of m
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 04:06:01PM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> being a year behind is suicide in any industry. being a year behind in an
> industry that moves as fast as open source software, is idiocy.
Why do we have to be a part of an industry? Debian would be commercial if we
truely cared about
our biggest handicap is that we're always a year behind everyone else. being
a year behind is suicide in any industry. being a year behind in an industry
that moves as fast as open source software, is idiocy. our stable release is
using 2.0.36. most people are afraid of our 'unstable' tree. you've
If debian puts a 2.4 in, they will have to spend time testing it.
there's enough to do without more stuff that we don't even know will be
out...
If you want 2.3 or 2.4, build it yourself. Look into kernel-package.
-Jim
---
Jim Lynch Finger for pgp key
as Laney College CIS admin: [EMAIL P
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 01:57:49PM -0500, SCOTT FENTON wrote:
> OK, Linus has just put out 2.3.51, the next patch will be a pre-2.4 one.
> To avoid the problems we've had with slink not being 2.2, I reccomend
> that, even if it's not the default, we include a 2.4 /binary/ in potato.
> You could eve
87 matches
Mail list logo
