I used "reply" rather than "reply to list" by mistake.
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: 2.4 kernel as default boot kernel on CD #1 ??
- From: "Karl M. Hegbloom" <email@example.com>
- Date: 05 Apr 2002 10:37:01 -0800
- Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20020405090008.GB11059@azure.humbug.org.au>
- References: <[🔎] 200204041518.HAA21796@rac3.netnw.com> <[🔎] 20020404221314.GA17331@ouaza.com> <[🔎] 200204050125.RAA23952@rac3.netnw.com> <[🔎] 20020405080738.GA13255@zombie.inka.de> <[🔎] 20020405090008.GB11059@azure.humbug.org.au>On Fri, 2002-04-05 at 01:00, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 10:07:38AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote: > > Jim Westveer wrote on Thu Apr 04, 2002 um 05:24:24PM: > > > I disagree, 2.4.x kernels have been out for over 2 years.....we should > > > not release a "new" version of Debian with such an outdated kernel ! > > > [appologies in advance to the boot-floppy group for all their hard work] > NOW IS _NOT_ THE TIME TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE WAY THE INSTALL WORKS. I don't think that using the 2.4 kernel changes the way the install works. I think that using a 2.2 kernel is a bad decision. Move forward to 2.4. > 2.4 is not the default kernel for woody installs, 2.2 is. Yes, it sucks, > and I don't care. Many of the rest of us DO care, and I move that this issue be brought up with the technical committee. If they say that I cannot make a formal motion due to not being (currently) an official Debian maintainer, then someone who is please step forward and carry this motion. The 2.4 kernel is quite stable and the install using it works just fine as far as I can tell. > debian-cd has exactly one goal right now: make sure we're ready to produce > official CDs that include the entire archive and let you get started on > an install. "But I want to install onto a journalling filesystem like Mandrake can."
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--- End Message ---