Re: kernel 2.0.34 and hamm
Luis Francisco Gonzalez <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Let's be clear about what this means. We need to compile the kernel
> and all packages that depend on it, pcmcia-modules, boot-floppies,
> etc. (We could, I guess live with the boot-floppies being 2.0.33 but
> given that there is a mismatch between the current kernel and the
> modules there is no advantage).
> I don't oppose getting the kernel into hamm given that so many people
> think it worth doing but this will mean a couple weeks more to get
> hamm out.
I think it's important that the kernel itself be available.
If we have secondary packages which require significant implementation
or testing before they can be released, we need to do something about
that for the long-run, but for now we'd need to simply document these
problems. Remember that the other half of the proposal is that 2.0.33
I don't agree that we have to delay the release of hamm to have 2.0.34
as a hamm package.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org