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

Re: Why so little info on the Pocket Beagle?



I think thats true of the ARM target over all,  being more fluid than other architectures right now.

It does remind me of the X86 space back in the early 2000's ( kernel 2.2.10/12 etc etc ) ..

Nige

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Alan Corey <alan01346@gmail.com> wrote:
I thought that was what was supposed to happen, but I think Pocket
Beagles are bleeding edge period.  I'm not sure how you make the
transition, stay on the edge for a year or so then load up another SD
with stable I guess.  Where it's a case of not having all the pins
defined yet in anything, I'm definitely interested in activating all
the hardware features.  Normally I run stable, maybe even a couple
years behind in OpenBSD.  In Debian I don't touch testing any more.
At least it's easier to switch SD cards than hard drives.

On 10/4/17, Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 8:31 PM, Nigel Sollars <nsollars@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Um no I dont think so,
>>
>> Here is why,  as these kernels by Robert have worked real well with my
>> BBB
>> Rev B.  I have had on odd occasions a kernel panic, allowing unsuspected
>> folk to this end would I think create useless noise.
>>
>> as it stands its more of a choice in that more effort is required, better
>> to
>> have that wiggle room vs useless noise..
>
> Forgive my ignorance... Aren't the unstable kernels (and other
> bleeding edge gear) provided in Testing and/or Unstable? If you don't
> enable them, then you should be safe with a dist-upgrade to pull the
> latest gear, including the latest stable kernel.
>
> Or maybe I misunderstand Debian's processes (which could well be the case).
>
> Jeff
>
>


--
-------------
No, I won't  call it "climate change", do you have a "reality problem"? - AB1JX
Impeach  Impeach  Impeach  Impeach  Impeach  Impeach  Impeach  Impeach



--
“Science is a differential equation. Religion is a boundary condition.”
                                                                                                  Alan Turing

Reply to: