Re: slink release delayed
On Thu, Mar 04, 1999 at 04:50:01AM -0800, Kevin Dalley wrote:
> Sven LUTHER <email@example.com> writes:
> > On Thu, Mar 04, 1999 at 03:47:29AM -0800, Kevin Dalley wrote:
> > > This isn't good enough. Having the source in 2.1 suggests that it is
> > > worth compiling and running. Some people always compile their own
> > > kernels and may not even notice the kernel-image is not included in
> > but they will surely compile it from upstyream kernel sources, not the debian
> > packages, or apply the newest patch to it, not just build it.
> > if it is time still, maybe just a notice of the unstability in some errata
> > file, or even in the control file would be nice and enough ...
> A notice in an errata file is not good enough. Many people do not
> bother to read errata files until something goes wrong. Losing data
> on my disk would make me unhappy. Placing source code in the stable
> distribution gives it the Debian stamp of approval, whether intended
> or not. A warning in the control file *might* be noticed, and is
> better than not having the warning. However, this is still not good
> If someone picks up an upstream kernel source, Debian is not to blame.
> In fact, 2.2.2 or later would probably be chosen, without the data
> destruction bug. Leaving the bad 2.2.1 kernel in Debian 2.1 is a
> dangerous idea.
i am running linux-m68-2.2.1-pre2, patched for my ppc based apus system since
some weeks now, i notice no data corruption, is this a i386 problem ?
it is nice also to have this kernel source on the cd, so i don't need to
download all the stuff, i could just grab the corresponding patches and apply