Re: About 2.0.34 not being perfect
Yann Dirson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> "There's always one more bug"
> I got it. At least, I got one...
> Adam P. Harris writes:
> > I know there were a few cyrix-specific fixes introduced in 2.0.34.
> > Maybe some of the people experiencing this problem might test it out
> > with that kernel? That might push out to definately try to get 2.0.34
> > in for hamm release. (Although AFAIK, it's ok to have new version of
> > boot floppies for hamm even after release date?)
> Hm, be careful with 2.0.34... I reported a nasty bug against it to
> linux-kernel, which makes it MUCH MUCH more unstable for me than
> 2.0.33 (console crashes within a few hours). As I did not receive any
> answer to it yes, I include it so it is know on Debian (I only sent a
> copy to Brandon as it's somewhat triggered under X)
Yes, I don't plan on cramming 2.0.34 down anyone's throat. Not that
it's even my decision. ;)
OTOH, there's a lot of interest in getting 2.0.34 into hamm; there's
also the need to get hamm out quickly (a greater need IMHO). In
short, I wouldn't want to hold up hamm release to wait for 2.0.34.
Anyhow, I'm going to do an NMU upload of pcmcia-modules for 2.0.34 if
I can get it working and tested for me at least, unless the pcmcia
maintainer gets it going first. This is just to get it out for
broader testing so we can evaluate whether 2.0.34 causes more problems
than it's going to solve.
Yann, please keep us here at <debian-testing> informed on any
resolution, followups, confirmation, or general status on this linux
.....A. P. Harris...apharris@onShore.com...<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org