Re: 3.0r3

[Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org>]

Joel Konkle-Parker wrote:
> >Sounds right to me.
> >
> >Separate, but related, question.  Is it ok for us to do a bin-NMU'ish build
> >of boot-floppies for ia64 so that we can move to a new kernel image on a 
> >woody
> >point release?  We would *really* like to get rid of the 2.4.17 bits in 
> >woody
> >and replace them with a fresher 2.4 version that works on more ia64 
> >systems and
> >has been better tested...  When we released woody, precious few ia64 
> >systems
> >were "in the wild" and we've learned a lot since then...
> 
> Without restricting this to ia64, what about adding a later kernel 
> version to woody overall? I don't think it needs to change any existing 
> packages... it would just be adding a new one for those who would like 
> to use it. A 2.4.20 or later kernel would take care of a lot of hardware 
> problems caused by the age of stable.

That'll increas woody size-wise, hence a no-go.

Regards,

	Joey

-- 
Life is too short to run proprietary software.  -- Bdale Garbee