2.4.x boot floppies, was: Vulnerable SSH versions
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi.
Although it might sound stupid, my question is:
Will there ever come a time when making 1220 boot floppies with 2.4.x kernel
will be doable?
If I assume that it's the kernel size that makes it difficult, then it
doesn't matter wether we use boot-floppies or debian-installer.
This leads me to believe we can't ship with 2.4 kernel until we drop debian
support for 1220 floppies.
Is this correct?
If not, how can we ever hope to ship with 2.4.x kernels?
How many debian users have the need for 1220 boot floppies?
And when I can create my own special boot floppy with 2.4.13 kernel, because
I have a new computer with HW RAID, does this mean we prioritize those with
older machines and 1220 floppies, higher than we prioritize those who have
expensive advanced new hardware?
And isn't the need for supporting this new hardware more imminent than the
need for supporting 1220 floppies?
I'm cross posting this to the boot list, as it is where the discussion should
take place.
Thank you for your time, even though I might have misunderstood something
here.
Jørgen
On Tuesday 13 November 2001 15:51, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 01:09:46PM +0100, Jørgen Hermanrud Fjeld wrote:
> > And will the next generation bootstrap system make it any easier to
> > switch? If not, what is crucial for the switch to happen?
>
> debian-installer is not anywhere near ready for prime-time and won't
> be used for woody, development is concentrated on boot-floppies
> otherwise we will never have any kind of working install system.
>
> besides the size problem the decision is not up to -boot, i386 woody
> will ship with 2.2.19 or 2.2.20, that is not going to change. (aph
> the boot-floppies maintainer has spoken on this already).
Thank you for your answers, I'm searching the boot archives for more
information.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iEYEARECAAYFAjvyTVAACgkQCx+ABR2dqkIN/gCfW7FMEfkfp8tsLnTarotU40b/
mgYAniCTu1Rw10AmvgBXxB2vKuFDaIkv
=l8pO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: