> Right. Are we planning on basing 2.0 around the 2.0.32 kernel? > Offering 2.0.29, 2.0.30, and 2.0.31 packages? i stronly suggest 2.0.32 : a) security issues b) practical issue : 2.0.29 and 2.0.30 isdn4linux has known bugs. 2.0.31 is reported to be unstable (herbert mailed this, AFAIK). andreas -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to email@example.com . Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .