[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Broken applications: Could we be honest?

* Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> [2006:07:14:10:52:16+0200] scribed:
> helices <helices@helices.org> writes:
> > * Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> [2006:07:13:13:47:58+0200] scribed:
> > <snip />
> >
> >> The amd64.debian.net is at the same level as sarge if you include the
> >> proposed updates. The only difference to official sarge is that the
> >> ftp-master hasn't pushed those proposed updates into our sarge yet
> >> (for which we all hate him a bit).
> >
> > Also, don't forget the kernel issues.  Much 64-bit hardware is quite
> > new, and NOT directly supported by the kernels available in Sarge.
> > Newer kernels may require else not available in Sarge; which may further
> > muddy the waters ...
> So? Neither are the i386 kernels any newer. Sarge has 2.6.8 as newest
> kernel across the board.
> The kernel version in sarge is not relevant to the topic of amd64
> being inofficial.

I do NOT quarrel with what you write; rather, I am making the point that
Sarge _cannot_ run on much 64-bit hardware, because the older kernels do
NOT support the newer hardware.  Although, as you say, this has
_nothing_ to do with any "official" amd64 Sarge distribution; I believe
that it is important that people consider these issues prior to
installing Debian on such hardware.

Don't forget the origin to this thread ...

Best Regards,

Dare to fix things before they break . . .
Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much
we think we know.  The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . .

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: