[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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?

Reply to: