Re: isdnutils and 2.0.36 (was: Linux 2.0.36 in slink?)
On Wed, Dec 16, 1998 at 12:38:24AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Oscar Levi writes:
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 1998 at 05:41:28PM +0100, Paul Slootman wrote:
> > > If 2.0.36 goes in (which I would like to see personally, as that supports
> > > *MUCH* more ISDN hardware, has bugs removed, is certified, etc.), I think
> > > I'd prefer to see the potato version of isdnutils put into slink.
> > > That's been tested more by now than a patched slink-update version would
> > > be...
> > It is unwise to change the kernel just before we ship. I support
> > making it optional for the minority of people who use ISDN adaptors.
> > It would be tragic if we upgraded the kernel and broke packages.
> sorry, but that seems to be an US centric view of things. This
> "minority" in Europe isn't such a minority at least in Germany and The
> Netherlands. I don't mind to have an isdnutils with autodial off by
> default in slink if it doesn't break things. Further the aic7xxx
> support is included in 2.0.36 (although it's patched in our 2.0.35
> kernel as well, 5.1.6 beeing the latest version).
You must be kidding. Are you trying to tell me that the percentage of
Debian GNU/Linux users in Europe (or your city for that matter) is
greater than 25? There may be many ISDN users, but are most of these
people using internal cards? I don't doubt that there are users out
there, but I'd need to see some figures before I'm gonna believe it is
more than a five-percent-nation.
Really, I'm not sure I'm going to be so hard to convince. I just
discovered that the reason I cannot NFS install Debian is that the NFS
client in 2.0.35 is broken. What I am starting to glean is that
2.0.35 is a kernel broken in way to many ways to be a tenable default.
What will it take to release 2.0.36? I mean, politically?