Re: kernel 2.0.34 and hamm

[Jim <jim@laney.edu>]

rdm@test.legislate.com said:
> I don't agree that we have to delay the release of hamm to have 2.0.34
> as a hamm package. 

I do :) 

Speaking purely as a user, I think the job should be done right.

Speaking as a debian advocate, it would be highly embarrassing to try to explain something like "Oh yeah, the new kernel is there, but you can't use it yet since ..." where ... stems from the person's need for some dependant package. Example: say he needs pcmcia.

So... if you're gonna put the kernel or the new gimp, do it right: compile whatever else needs those packages and do the testing. We all know debian hamm is relatively stable... but such a move would lose you folx who would otherwise use it. A kernel is just plain too important to cut corners as you suggest.

-Jim
who doesn't have a vote here.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org