On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 10:39:32PM -0500, Grant Edwards wrote:
| On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 07:58:24PM -0700, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson wrote:
| > On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Grant Edwards wrote:
| >
| > > I notice that "woody" installs a 2.2 kernel instead of a 2.4
| > > kernel. Are the reasons behind that dec
* Grant Edwards ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 07:58:24PM -0700, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Grant Edwards wrote:
> >
> > > I notice that "woody" installs a 2.2 kernel instead of a 2.4
> > > kernel. Are the reasons behind that decision?
> >
>
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 07:58:24PM -0700, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Grant Edwards wrote:
>
> > I notice that "woody" installs a 2.2 kernel instead of a 2.4
> > kernel. Are the reasons behind that decision?
>
> 2.2 was current when woody was in development.
I'm not sure
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Grant Edwards wrote:
> I notice that "woody" installs a 2.2 kernel instead of a 2.4
> kernel. Are the reasons behind that decision?
2.2 was current when woody was in development.
> Is the plan to have "stable" 3.0 run a 2.2 kernel?
Yes.
> I'm planning on building a custom
Xeno Campanoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, I can't get 2.2.20 by default. I don't see it on stable, and
> last time I asked about it I was told to get it off "testing". Kindof
> bad since security listings strongly recommend updating production
> systems to 2.2.20.
2.2.19 in Debian's
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 02:10:17PM -0700, Xeno Campanoli wrote:
> Actually, I can't get 2.2.20 by default. I don't see it on stable, and
> last time I asked about it I was told to get it off "testing". Kindof
> bad since security listings strongly recommend updating production
> systems to 2.2.20
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 02:10:17PM -0700, Xeno Campanoli wrote:
> > I did. I didn't find the answer to my question. Can you tell
> > > me which section explains the reasons why Debian still uses a
> > > 2.2.20 kernel by default instead of a 2.4 kernel like most
> > > other distros?
>
> Actually,
> I did. I didn't find the answer to my question. Can you tell
> > me which section explains the reasons why Debian still uses a
> > 2.2.20 kernel by default instead of a 2.4 kernel like most
> > other distros?
Actually, I can't get 2.2.20 by default. I don't see it on stable, and
last time I a
On Wednesday 17 April 2002 21:46, jeff wrote:
> well, how about a few of us on the list get our heads together and make
> our own debianized release with all the new goodies we would like to
> see. i think it could be done - maybe a little part-time project - for
> peeps who could dedicate at least
well, how about a few of us on the list get our heads together and make
our own debianized release with all the new goodies we would like to
see. i think it could be done - maybe a little part-time project - for
peeps who could dedicate at least 4-10 hours a week or somethin' like
that. i like all
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 01:45:46PM -0500, Donald R. Spoon wrote:
> Go over to the Developers / Debian-Boot mailing list and look for a
> thread entitled "2.4 kernel as default boot kernel on CD #1 ??" started
> around 4 April 2002, I think. This might answer some of your
> questions... dunno.
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 09:07:30PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > I did. I didn't find the answer to my question. Can you tell
> > me which section explains the reasons why Debian still uses a
> > 2.2.20 kernel by default instead of a 2.4 kernel like most
> > other distros?
>
> I could try, but
#include
Grant Edwards wrote on Wed Apr 17, 2002 um 01:14:02PM:
> I did. I didn't find the answer to my question. Can you tell
> me which section explains the reasons why Debian still uses a
> 2.2.20 kernel by default instead of a 2.4 kernel like most
> other distros?
I could try, but I would
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 01:45:46PM -0500, Donald R. Spoon wrote:
> Grant Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My concern is that if Debian hasn't switched to a 2.4 kernel,
> > there must be a reason. If I start shipping a product with
> > Debian running a 2.4 kernel, I don't want to find out th
Grant Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 07:29:28PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include
Grant Edwards wrote on Wed Apr 17, 2002 um 12:32:09PM:
> I notice that "woody" installs a 2.2 kernel instead of a 2.4
> Then you should read Release Notes
I did. I didn't find th
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 07:29:28PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> Grant Edwards wrote on Wed Apr 17, 2002 um 12:32:09PM:
>
> > I notice that "woody" installs a 2.2 kernel instead of a 2.4
>
> Then you should read Release Notes
I did. I didn't find the answer to my question. Can you te
#include
Grant Edwards wrote on Wed Apr 17, 2002 um 12:32:09PM:
>
> I notice that "woody" installs a 2.2 kernel instead of a 2.4
Then you should read Release Notes and put the bf2.4 CD into the drive.
Gruss/Regards,
Eduard.
--
Wer Stabilität aufgibt, um Benutzerfreundlichkeit zu bekommen, verd
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 12:32:09 -0500
"Grant Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I notice that "woody" installs a 2.2 kernel instead of a 2.4
> kernel. Are the reasons behind that decision?
TMK, Woody installs the kernel that the installation was started with.
There are several boot images for W
18 matches
Mail list logo
