Re: Kernel 2.0.30 a bad choice for 1.3
Christoph <email@example.com> writes:
> On 21 May 1997, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Since we know of a number of things that have been broken in 2.0.30
> > (such as IP masquerading being totally hosed), why are we distributing
> > that version with 1.3?
2.0.30 has SYN_COOKIES. This is a critical feature.
> > It seems like a rather bad idea because it
> > could very well break the setups of a number of people.
I think that neither 2.0.29 nor 2.0.30 have a sufficient quality for
the Debian release.
> 2.0.29 is the proper kernel unless Herbert can assure us that he has fixed
> all known bugs especially in relationship to networking.
I doubt that Herbert has any methods for assuring anything over a 30
Megabytes source tree. The kernel developers didn't manage to fix all
known bugs in 2.0.30, and I expect them to have significiantly better
skills in this area than Herbert. Herbert does a good job with
kernel-image, but we must not request him to fix arbitrary kernel
Sven Rudolph <firstname.lastname@example.org> ; WWW : http://www.sax.de/~sr1/
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .