Re: forget putting 2.0.36 in slink 2.2.0 pre1 is out
But wouldn't 2.2 require a lot more testing to be done than 2.0.36? The
magnitude of the change from 2.0.35 to 2.0.36 is MUCH less than going to
2.2.0.
For instance, the last experimental kernel I tried was 2.1.125. It
compiled without any problems and almost everything worked, but the one
thing which did not was ppp. I tried for a day to get it working but was
unsuccessful. If people have problems getting something as essential as
ppp to work, there will be a huge outcry!
On the other hand, I have been running 2.0.36 since the day it came out
and have had absolutely no problems. Not that this means a lot, and I
realize that there is a big disadvantage to being behind the other
distros, but one of Debian's strengths has been the reputation for
stability and I'd hate to see us lose that.
My .02,
Bob
On Tue, 29 Dec 1998, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 1998 at 06:06:31PM -0600, David Welton wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 28, 1998 at 11:56:28PM +0000, Edward Betts wrote:
> > > 2.2.0 is soon
> >
> > So - we use 35 or whatever the boot floppy people feel comfortable
> > with for that, 36 for the 'main' kernel, and try and make the system
> > compatible with 2.2.0. Does this sound logical?
>
> wouldn't this mean recompiling libc6 to use kernel-headers-2.2.0 ?
>
> i don't think that's necessarily a bad idea (in fact, there are some
> great benefits, like breaking the 1024fd limit for squid)....but it
> will need testing.
>
> craig
>
> ps: in general, i'm in favour of running with linux kernel 2.2 - i've been
> using 2.1.x kernels for months and they're a great improvement over 2.0.x,
> especially for my SMP machines.
>
> --
> craig sanders
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>
----
Bob Nielsen Internet: nielsen@primenet.com
Tucson, AZ AMPRnet: w6swe@w6swe.ampr.org
DM42nh http://www.primenet.com/~nielsen
Reply to: