Re: Included newer kernels in intermediate Debian releases
Justin Maurer <justin@slashdot.org> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 06, 1999 at 03:03:06AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > >
> > > jdg> The version of the Linux 2.2.x kernel available at the time
> > > jdg> slink was frozen was 2.2.1; however, various problems have been
> > > jdg> observed on i386 (Intel-type) machines, which can lead to a
> > > jdg> serious loss of data. You are strongly recommended to download
> > > jdg> patches to fix this problem before running a 2.2 kernel on an
> > > jdg> i386 machine.
The benefit to this is that not all architectures using 2.2.x (are
there any aside from the edge case, sun4u) have to move to the one
true kernel source.
The downside is massive bloat.
> i don't see a problem with it, but it's crucially important it not be the
> default kernel. also, slap a *HUGE* warning sign. 2.2.1 is pretty buggy.
> anything >=2.2.4ac1 is not as bad.
Well, geeze, guys, this is a priority extra source package. No one's
talking about change the default kernel. Its just that if we're
shipping kernel source as a convenience (and nothing really depends on
it anyway -- um, well, sun4u), why in the world wouldn't we want to
ship the newest?
I'm almost just inclined to roast 2.2.1 and replace with 2.2.5, but
I'm waiting for word from the sparc boot-floppies guy.
Mr Johnie Ingram, what do you think of this idea? Could you upload
2.2.5 to stable (that is, stable-updates)?
--
.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
Reply to: