Re: Too many kernels in unstable
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Perhaps the last two kernels of the stable tree(s) is good.
> We have more kernels now because 2.0.X didn't die after 2.2.X was
> released. Doesn't that argue that 2.2.X wasn't ready?
This could also be caused by the fact that someone, though he might be
tempted to upgrade his kernel (e.g. to 2.0.38), does not want to upgrade
all the other required programs (modutils, pppd, etc. etc.)
This may be true especially for server systems - I'd be very hesitating
to upgrade anything which isn't broken as is. Question is off course if
you'd be willing to reboot your server to upgrade it's kernel anyway
(though the latest to 2.0 kernels are probably worth it- if you can
afford to be down for a few minutes).
Also, I think there should always be a 2.0 series kernel available, just
because they're usually smaller - it will be of good use on a low end
system (i[3|4]86, < 8 mb ram).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filip Van Raemdonck
mechanix@digibel.org
member of the fibo-systeam
http://fibo.hogent.be | http://fibolite.hogent.be
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: