Re: 2.2rev3 CDs (was Re: Stable Release plan)
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 11:15:03AM +1000, jason andrade wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Nate Duehr wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:37:33PM +0200, Bernd Hentig wrote:
> > > AFAIK, the only kernels worth having in either binary or source
> > > are (in release order) 2.0.36, 2.0.17, 2.0.19, 2.4.2. All others are
>
> > You don't like *any* of the 2.2 series?
>
> it looks like a typo to me
>
> 2.0.36, 2.2.17, 2.2.19, 2.4.2
I noted that after I hit send... hmm. Heh.
>
> i am not sure why one would want 2.0.36 or 2.2.17 on cd1.. i would
> have put them on cd3, but that's just my opinion. from what anne
> originally said though, 10 kernels is certainly getting out of hand
> (and disk space) in a release sense.
I haven't looked lately, but I don't think many distros keep around too
many older kernels on the installation media -- they just let people
grab them from their ftp sites. Newbies don't know how to replace
kernels on boot media if they have a machine that is reluctant to use a
newer kernel, and hopefully the newer kernels actually perform BETTER --
but we all know that doesn't always happen... :-)
> have debian addressed the alleged file corruption (ext2) issue that
> i heard was present in 2.4.X uptil 2.4.3 ?
On that question, I would have no idea. I would assume the kernel
maintainers would have more info -- the debian-cd crew tries to stick to
their created packages for CD's, definitely.
All the best,
--
Nate Duehr <nate@natetech.com>
GPG Key fingerprint = DCAF 2B9D CC9B 96FA 7A6D AAF4 2D61 77C5 7ECE C1D2
Public Key available upon request, or at wwwkeys.pgp.net and others.
Reply to: