Re: Say, wheres 2.2.20?
On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 02:42:43PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 10:54:57AM -0800, Xeno Campanoli wrote:
> > > Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > > >
> > > > All that the package supplies is the kernel. It will be as stable as any
> > > > other kernel package wheather it is in stable or not (it's the official
> > > > 2.2.20) so what's your prob? Maybe you should check before you assume that
> > > > just because it's in testing that it's not stable.
> > >
> > > I'll keep that in mind. If it is really that difficult for it to go
> > > through the process to become formalized as stable, then is that
> > > difficulty all wasted effort?
> >
> > Debian's release/revision (from stable to stable) process is much slower
> > than the kernel's. That's a known fact.
> >
> > If you want to wait... that's up to you. If you want more recent stuff
> > (including kernels packaged by debian) you should use testing.
>
> [ not sure if the mail-followup-to: header is supposed to cc: two ppl;
> if not I apologize ]
>
> Erm, I don't quite follow this. If you need the new PHP, then yes,
> testing is about your only out. But if all you need is a new kernel,
> what's wrong with grabbing the kernel source from kernel.org and compiling
> using make-kpkg? New kernel, all the benefits of debian packaging ...
Personally, I compile and install kernels by hand (i.e. make
menuconfig; make bzImage; make install) What's the advantage of using
make-kpkg? I use stable/2.2.20 on my servers and testing/2.4 or 2.5 on
development boxes.
--
Martin Orr "Cogitavi ergo fui."
Linux Administrator,
Methodist College Belfast
The opinions expressed in this e-mail are mine personally, and should not
be interpreted as representing those of the College or the CCC unless
explicitly stated otherwise.
Reply to: