Re: The nature of unstable (was: Danger Will Robinson! Danger!)
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 01:43:46PM +0000, Paul M Sargent wrote:
> > > Woody should be running 2.3 or pre-2.4. That should have been among the
> > > first things to change.
> >
> > There's a misunderstanding here: the distribution has no default kernel,
> > the boot floppies do. Since nobody is working on woody boot floppies (why
> > should they?), there is no default kernel for woody, it's all inherited
> > from potato.
>
> ...but a distribution is designed for a particular kernel. e.g. slink is
> designed for 2.0.x with some packages for 2.2.x support. Supporting a kernel
> is not as much about the kernel package itself, but about the tools which
> surround it.
But slink is practically completely adjusted for 2.2 already. IIRC, Sparc
people needed a new glibc and a new kernel for slink, and that pulled in
overall support for 2.2 in packages like mount or similar.
> If the kernel isn't even in the archive then potential problems aren't
> going to be found.
I wouldn't put that much `weight' in the fact that kernel is in the archive:
kernel packages don't get upgraded to new upstream versions, so if you want
a new kernel, you have to make the decision to install it, on your own.
Having the kernel in the archive is convenient for those with limited
network access, using stable, or a snapshot of unstable.
> P.S. I missed the discussion on package pools. What's the theory?
Implement a database for managing the FTP archive that would make lots of
nifty things available... search the Debian Weekly News or debian-devel
archives for details.
--
enJoy -*/\*- don't even try to pronounce my first name
Reply to: