Re: Some 2.6.6 kernel questions
Hi, Sven
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:18:27PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:58:21AM -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> > On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 07:15, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:29:25PM -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> >
> > > > Just yesterday I grabbed a plain 2.6.8-rc1 kernel
> > > > from www.kernel.org/pub/linux/ and it works great
> > > > on my Mac Cube. Perhaps you should try that.
> > >
> > > And what about kernel-image-2.6.7-powerpc ? Does it work fine also ? And
> > > if not did you fill a bug report. If yes, what motivated you to build
> > > your own kernel over using the debian provided one ?
> >
> > I never trust distribution-provided kernels. They are
> > often full of questionable patches, obsolete, and way
> > too generic for my taste. They might not even use the
> > larger 12x22 console font.
>
> Bah, whatever. try to stay current, the current trend is to have most
> debian patches either dropped, or merged upstream. Furthermore, there
> are some upstream kernel maintainers part of the kernel team since a few
> weeks, and i believe they probably have a better judgement about patches
> than even you do. As for obsolet, well, that is a bit ridicoulous, as
> 2.6.7 is the latest release, and it includes some backport of patches
> that will go in 2.6.8.
>
> As for the genericness, since most of the stuff is being modularized,
> this is no more the case. And if you have some trouble with the config,
> please fill bug reports.
>
IMHO, it might be as well a matter of habits. Until your new and great
work on kernel-images and until powerpc patches were merged in the main
tree, many of us had to compile our own kernels. We needed 2.5.x
series from BenH and we probably couldn't wait for a precompiled kernel.
These images are now, and sure, they are the easy way ---the only for
novice users--- to work now. But some of us are used to the old way.
That may be an explanation :)
Thanks a lot for your work on Debian.
Greetings,
Luis
Reply to: