>
>Well, it's up to the release manager (and possibly debian-devel, but
>straw polls on mailing lists don't really count for very much), not even
>remotely debian-user. :) Remember that every Debian release has a hell
>of a lot of new stuff - potato was a year and a half after slink, apart
>from an
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From: John Griffiths <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>I'm hardly an expert.. but wasn't 3.0 waiting for the 3.0 kernel?
>
>I had not heard that they where tracking kernel numbers but
>it would make sense to do it that way.
No, kernel versions have nothing to do with it, and I dou
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have no idea where it will go first but I would think we should see
>it in Woody in the pretty near future.
I imagine so. (It will go into unstable first, like everything else.)
You can always build it from source, which a lot of people end up doing
with kernels anywa
I had not heard that they where tracking kernel numbers but
it would make sense to do it that way.
-- Original Message --
From: John Griffiths <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 14:26:51 +1100
>At 08:13 PM 1/4/2001 -0700, Ray Percival wrote:
>>I ha
At 08:13 PM 1/4/2001 -0700, Ray Percival wrote:
>I have no idea where it will go first but I would think we should
>see it in Woody in the pretty near future. No the next version
>of Potato will be 2.2r3. Won't get a new version number till
>Woody goes stable. IMHO Woody should be 3.0 think about i
I have no idea where it will go first but I would think we should
see it in Woody in the pretty near future. No the next version
of Potato will be 2.2r3. Won't get a new version number till
Woody goes stable. IMHO Woody should be 3.0 think about it a
new major version of X and a new major version o
6 matches
Mail list logo
