Re: Linux 2.0.36 in slink?
Jospeh Carter <email@example.com> wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 14, 1998 at 11:27:17AM -0800, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
>> Obviously, the security holes are what's important to fix.
>> Just move the new isdnutils into slink. Problem solved. :)
>Probably, but maybe not. If we put 2.0.36 into slink as an alternative,
>could we organize an informal texting group to pound on it a bit and see
>what cracks? If the results are that it doesn't crack too much, then
>perhaps we could/should install the potato package into slink and make it
>the default kernel, providing the old possibly if someone needs it?
>Would this be a reasonable solution?
I think so. Has anyone contacted Brian White about it?
I'm for it for two reasons:
* A *lot* of people upgrade kernels on their own - if the latest stable
debian can't handle the latest stable kernel, there *will be problems*.
* The naysayers were saying nay a month ago when it came out. If we put it
in then, it could have been properly tested and all bugs shaken out,
*by now*. What, do you think the entire linux world is going to abandon
2.0.36 and go back to 2.0.35 because of some crippling bug? Then why not
move forward and work with it? There's still plenty of time.
I've run 2.0.36 since it came out and have had no problems with it :)
(I'm also convinced debian shoulda picked up that modular-sound patch that
was part of 2.0.36preX for a while, but it's way too late to do that now :)
Robert Woodcock - firstname.lastname@example.org
"Unix and C are the ultimate computer viruses" -- Richard Gabriel