[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Vulnerable SSH versions



On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 09:02:46AM +0100, Stefan Schwandter wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 04:54:04PM -0900, Ethan Benson wrote:
> 
> > > Which makes me wonder, why ship Woody with 2.2.20 at all? Oh well, not
> > > my decision.
> 
> > because 2.4 is not stable yet.
> 
> Hmmm... I think it will take some months before woody is released. Don't
> you think 2.4 will have stabilized enough by that time?

because then we have to break boot-floppies and start the long arduous
process of stabelizing them all over again.

2.4 is also especially problematic on i386 since you have to fit it on
all these archaic 1.22MB floppies and such. 

however do note that some of debian's architectures will ship with 2.4
simply because 2.2 doesn't properly support them, or 2.4 is actually
more stable then 2.2 (due to the various stages porting work is/was
at).

for the curious here is the current rundown:

ifeq "$(architecture)" "alpha"
    kver        := 2.2.19
endif
ifeq "$(architecture)" "arm"
    kver        := 2.2.19
endif
ifeq "$(architecture)" "i386"
    kver        := 2.2.19
endif
ifeq "$(architecture)" "m68k"
    kver        := 2.2.19
endif
ifeq "$(architecture)" "powerpc"
    kver        := 2.2.19
    pcmcia_kver := 2.2.19-pmac
    apuskver    := 2.2.10
endif
ifeq "$(architecture)" "sparc"
    kver        := 2.2.19
    kver_sun4u  := 2.4.10
endif
ifeq "$(architecture)" "ia64"
    kver        := 2.4.9
endif
ifeq "$(architecture)" "hppa"
    kver        := 2.4.9
endif
ifeq "$(architecture)" "mips"
    kver        := 2.4.9
endif
ifeq "$(architecture)" "mipsel"
    kver        := 2.4.9
endif
ifeq "$(architecture)" "s390"
    kver        := 2.4.7
endif


so if you want a 2.4 kernel by default switch to one of the above 2.4
listed architectures :P  otherwise just apt-get install kernel-image-2.4.YY 
after install.

-- 
Ethan Benson
http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/

Attachment: pgpeKDzNDxNrE.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: