Re: [non-i386 people needed] Proposed packages for 2.1r4

["J.A. Bezemer" <costar@panic.et.tudelft.nl>]

On Thu, 25 Nov 1999, Wichert Akkerman wrote:

> Previously J.A. Bezemer wrote:
> > I don't follow kernel development, but 2.2.13 has been out since 20 Oct, and
> > >1 month without update (or errata on www.linux.org.uk) is really long for any
> > stable kernel. So I think "a lot of bugs" in 2.2.13 is a little overstated.
> > Correct me if I'm wrong...
> > 
> 
> There have been frequent updates, look at all the 2.2.14-pre patches.

Of course, updates. But are those updates fixing bugs? Critical bugs? Security
bugs? Or are they only adding features? IMHO&AFAIK: some, very few, none, and
most, respectively. 

Let me just say: 1) 2.2.13 is definately _much_ better than 2.2.5; 2) if you
don't include 2.2.13 "because there are updates" you can't include any
kernel at all because updates are almost daily; 3) we're dedicated to
providing some quality of service to our users, isn't it?

And now we're discussing this: there is 2.0.38 which _does_ fix security bugs
in 2.0.36. And yet we're still using 2.0.36 for our "stable" systems..?


Regards,
  Anne Bezemer