Re: The nature of unstable (was: Danger Will Robinson! Danger!)
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 02:50:12PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 11:50:47AM +0000, Paul M Sargent wrote:
> > Woody should be running 2.3 or pre-2.4. That should have been among the
> > first things to change.
> There's a misunderstanding here: the distribution has no default kernel,
> the boot floppies do. Since nobody is working on woody boot floppies (why
> should they?), there is no default kernel for woody, it's all inherited
> from potato.
...but a distribution is designed for a particular kernel. e.g. slink is
designed for 2.0.x with some packages for 2.2.x support. Supporting a kernel
is not as much about the kernel package itself, but about the tools which
surround it. Classic examples are thing like mount, or binutils. If the
kernel isn't even in the archive then potential problems aren't going to be
P.S. I missed the discussion on package pools. What's the theory?