On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 11:39:23AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > > Not woody, but woody's kernels. I see no serious reasons to have an > up-to-date kernel added to woody. In potato's days there were > major updates for kernels and boot-floppies kernels. > Oh, well :) I meant _to have NOT_ of course! -- Francesco P. Lovergine