Re: Desktop upgrade strategy (was: What should be upgraded first: kernel or userland?)

To: debian-release@lists.debian.org, debian-doc@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Desktop upgrade strategy (was: What should be upgraded first: kernel or userland?)
From: Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 00:55:25 +0200
Message-id: <[🔎] 200703260055.53472.elendil@planet.nl>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20070325222942.GA443@javifsp.no-ip.org>
References: <[🔎] 20070319005910.GF12955@javifsp.no-ip.org> <[🔎] 20070325102017.GA31550@mauritius.dodds.net> <[🔎] 20070325222942.GA443@javifsp.no-ip.org>

On Monday 26 March 2007 00:29, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> Yes, that's the works situation. I think it might make sense to tell
> users to have a 2.4 "failback" kernel for those situations (so they can
> continue the upgrade)

If a 2.4 kernel works at all on their system...

Attachment: pgp3i5lq6IoiA.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to:

References:
- (Release Notes) What should be upgraded first: kernel or userland?
  - From: Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <jfs@computer.org>
- Re: Desktop upgrade strategy (was: What should be upgraded first: kernel or userland?)
  - From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>
- Re: Desktop upgrade strategy (was: What should be upgraded first: kernel or userland?)
  - From: Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <jfs@computer.org>

Prev by Date: Re: Desktop upgrade strategy (was: What should be upgraded first: kernel or userland?)
Next by Date: Re: Desktop upgrade strategy (was: What should be upgraded first: kernel or userland?)
Previous by thread: Re: Desktop upgrade strategy (was: What should be upgraded first: kernel or userland?)
Next by thread: Re: Desktop upgrade strategy (was: What should be upgraded first: kernel or userland?)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread