Re: Linux 2.1

[kai@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen)]

clameter@waterf.org (Christoph Lameter)  wrote on 03.10.96 in <[🔎] Pine.LNX.3.95.961003075110.28340A-100000@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

If you want to know about 2.1, see the linux kernel list (at vger, or  
under the linux.* pseudo-Usenet hierarchy).

> my knowledge. 2.1 changes some important things regarding how linux
> addresses memory and breaks a lot of drivers.

True - the first versions will need a lot of work. No surprises.

> 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.

Don't invent kernel version numbers.

Last I heard, 2.0.x bugfixing was *NOT* officially stopped. It was  
supposed to continue parallel to 2.1.x development, depending on what's  
found wrt bugs.

MfG Kai

--
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