Re: Say, wheres 2.2.20?
On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 06:20:28PM -0600, 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:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 01:11:34PM +0800, Mo Zhen Guang wrote:
> > > > > as always, security update may be troublesome with testing distribution.
> > > > > stable is much easier
> > > > > Mo
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Version: 2.2.20-2
> > > > Provides: kernel-image
> > > > Depends: fileutils (>= 4.0)
> > > >
> > > > What version of fileutils is in potato?
> > > >
> > > > 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 ]
No prob, it makes it easier to see it, but if there is a "references" header
that works too.
>
> 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 ...
>
You may notice that my origional suggestion was to just get the kernel
package from testing/woody.
Many things haven't been updated in stable that detract it in my view, such
as samba.
Mike
Reply to: