Re: Choosing which 2.4 kernel tree to use for OldWorld
> On 14 Aug, this message from Mike Fedyk echoed through cyberspace:
> > For the machines that I *really* need to humm away, and keep working I'll
> > use 2.2.
> > For 2.4, which tree breaks the least? Hopefully, there is a tree that will
> > supply a bootable kernel that doesn't break core functionality depending on
> > the time of day...
On Sun, Aug 19, 2001 at 10:06:18AM +0200, Michel Lanners wrote:
> I am quite happy with BenH's tree. As long as disk space permits, I keep
> old trees around, and especially one marked as 'good' ;-). That's the
> kernel I run for day-to-day use, when not trying out newer kernels.
> That is at this time probably the best approach to 2.4 kernels: try
> BenH's kernels for some time, and stick to one that works well for you.
Ok, I'll do that...
I'm currently on the debian-powerpc, LKML and linuxppc-dev mailing lists. Are
there any others I should monitor to keep up with the latest changes on PPC