Re: Linux 2.1

[Christoph Lameter <clameter@waterf.org>]

On Thu, 3 Oct 1996 Dirk.Eddelbuettel@qed.econ.queensu.ca wrote:

Dirk.Eddelbuettel>
Dirk.Eddelbuettel>I was just wondering whether 2.0.21 had been succeeded by a newer patch ---
Dirk.Eddelbuettel>and the answer is yes and no.
Dirk.Eddelbuettel>
Dirk.Eddelbuettel>No for a 2.0.x patch, but yes as the development of 2.1 has started on Sep 30
Dirk.Eddelbuettel>with a 2.0.21-2.1.0 patch of 310 kB gzipped!!! Now, I haven't looked into
Dirk.Eddelbuettel>Usenet in a long time, so have you heard what the kernel development is up to
Dirk.Eddelbuettel>these days?  Are the goals of 2.1 public somewhere?
Not to my knowledge. 2.1 changes some important things regarding how linux
addresses memory and breaks a lot of drivers.

Dirk.Eddelbuettel>Anyway, as 2.0 seems to have converged (no patch since Sep 20), we might want
Dirk.Eddelbuettel>to compile a new set of kernel-{image,source,headers}, bootdisks, pcmcia
Dirk.Eddelbuettel>modules etc.
Perhaps we should make our own 2.0.22 version since I know of a couple of
bugs that Linus did not fix. Most importantly the fix for the memory leak
in the bridging code (just erases one line) was not put into 2.0.21 and
some other reliability things that Alan wanted to get in but appearantly
did not.

{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
{}  Consulting available for Networking / Unix / Crossplatform integration    {}
{}  Snail Mail:   FTS Box 466, 135 N.Oakland Ave, Pasadena, CA 91182          {}
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
PGP Public Key  =  FB 9B 31 21 04 1E 3A 33  C7 62 2F C0 CD 81 CA B5 

--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com