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

Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink

> > > There is precedent for this as there is a 2.1.125 package in slink now.
> > > I think it's not a big deal if there are big disclaimers attached that
> > > slink is not a 2.2 targetted dist.
> >
> > Disclamers are of marginal use.  It will appear as installable and tell
> > people to "install me" just as an elevator buttun tells people "push me".
> > Adding a disclaimer is like taking a door with a big, "pull me" handle
> > and putting a "push" sign above it.  The "affordance" of the handle
> > talks far more loudly than the sign.
> >
> > There is good reason to have new kernels in "unstable", but we're
> > talking "stable", here.
> Perhaps the 2.1.125 kernel source should be removed from archs which
> don't use it then?

The more I think about it, the less objection I have to a source package.
They're nice to have, require thought before installing, and give some
extra "bragging rights", as someone put it.

                                  ( bcwhite@pobox.com )

    In theory, theory and practice are the same.  In practice, they're not.

Reply to: