Luis Francisco Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Precisely, in bo the boot-floppies had to disable pcmcia because it was
> broken. I guess you never had to install using a pcmcia network card.
> If we make changes to the kernels, let's make sure there is no broken
> dependent package.
I don't
Raul Miller wrote:
> Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Speaking as a debian advocate, it would be highly embarrassing to try
> > to explain something like "Oh yeah, the new kernel is there, but you
> > can't use it yet since ..." where ... stems from the person's need for
> > some dependant packag
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> How is this different from bo, where we also had three kernel versions
> available and only had pcmcia modules for the first two?
No difference. And no improvement. :)
-Jim
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contac
Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Speaking as a debian advocate, it would be highly embarrassing to try
> to explain something like "Oh yeah, the new kernel is there, but you
> can't use it yet since ..." where ... stems from the person's need for
> some dependant package. Example: say he needs pcmc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> I don't agree that we have to delay the release of hamm to have 2.0.34
> as a hamm package.
I do :)
Speaking purely as a user, I think the job should be done right.
Speaking as a debian advocate, it would be highly embarrassing to try to
explain something like "Oh y
Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A month or two? Isn't the development kernel supposed to be released as
> "stable" by then?
Oh no, I don't think so. Kernel development seems to be caotic at this
time. Maintainers of different parts of the kernels are complaining
loudly because Linus h
Hi,
> There is apparently an updated driver on whatever the AIC7XXX driver's home
> site is. Maybe that should be included as a local patch for our source---at
> least up to this point, Alan Cox has been making it sound like 2.0.35 is a
> month or two away, at least.
A month or two? Isn't the
On Sat, Jun 06, 1998 at 06:18:19PM -0400, Ossama Othman wrote:
> > Yes, AIC7XXX is a problem with 2.0.34. This probably means that 2.0.35
> > will be
> > forthcoming.
> I've had no problems whatsoever with my AIC7880 onboard UW SCSI
> controller. It handles my SCSI-3 hard drive, SCSI-2 CD-ROM
Hi,
> Yes, AIC7XXX is a problem with 2.0.34. This probably means that 2.0.35 will
> be
> forthcoming.
I've had no problems whatsoever with my AIC7880 onboard UW SCSI
controller. It handles my SCSI-3 hard drive, SCSI-2 CD-ROM Drive and my
SCSI-1 DAT/DDS-2 tape drive just fine. Nevertheless,
On Sat, 6 Jun 1998, Jesse Goldman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Looks to me like kernel 2.0.34 is more than just a bugfix release. The
> aic7xxx/pci driver changed *completely* with the result that my adaptec
> 2940AU no longer seems to work. I'd agree with the suggestion that 2.0.33
> be kept around a bit lo
How about ship Hamm with 2.0.33 as setup but include what's necessary for
2.0.34 the way Bo has 2.0.29 but includes the stuff for 2.0.30
--
http://benham.net/index.html
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.1
GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++> P+++$ L++> E?
Hi,
Looks to me like kernel 2.0.34 is more than just a bugfix release. The
aic7xxx/pci driver changed *completely* with the result that my adaptec
2940AU no longer seems to work. I'd agree with the suggestion that 2.0.33
be kept around a bit longer.
J. Goldman
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMA
Luis Francisco Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let's be clear about what this means. We need to compile the kernel
> and all packages that depend on it, pcmcia-modules, boot-floppies,
> etc. (We could, I guess live with the boot-floppies being 2.0.33 but
> given that there is a mismatch betwe
Martin Mitchell wrote:
> I second this, 2.0.34 has undergone much testing in prereleases and is a
> further refinement of the stable branch of the kernel tree.
Let's be clear about what this means. We need to compile the kernel and all
packages that depend on it, pcmcia-modules, boot-floppies, etc.
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would like to recommend that linux 2.0.34 be made available as a
> part of hamm. This is because 2.0.34 is a bugfix-only upgrade to
> 2.0.33.
>
> However, I don't think we have enough experience with 2.0.34 to
> eliminate 2.0.33 from the distribution.
15 matches
Mail list logo
