Re: 2.2.11 boot floppies
On Sun, Aug 22, 1999 at 04:35:34PM +0000, Vincent Renardias wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> > >Because the 2.2 kernel has security fixes (I think), plus it works a lot
> > >better with a lot more hardware than does 2.0, and of course it has a lot of
> > >new features. It's similar to why I want slink with an updated X, because
> > >the old drivers are just not working well on new hardware these days.
> > >
> > >(Oh, and BTW, *every* other major linux distro has a 2.2 kernel by default
> > >now, accoording to the LJ disto comparison.)
> > [...]
> > >I really don't see the need to keep 2.0.36 in there.
> > Geeze, I'm not quite sure what you're going for. Are you lobbying to
> > have a 2.1rX which include 2.2 updates?
> Debian 2.1r3 is already supposed to be 2.2 compatible.
> And we'll hardly be able to call this release 'update' if we still ship
> with 2.0.
Oh, interesting. Wichert and Adam Di Carlo rejected an update of
the ftape-source Debian package because compatibility with 2.2.x was
_not_ enough to get the package included in 2.1r3 (even though the
package in slink doesn't compile with 2.2.x, creates broken archives with
some drives and the updated package is just an upgrade from pre2 to pre3).
Christian Meder, email: email@example.com
What's the railroad to me ?
I never go to see
Where it ends.
It fills a few hollows,
And makes banks for the swallows,
It sets the sand a-blowing,
And the blackberries a-growing.
(Henry David Thoreau)