Re: stable or not stable?
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Fri, 9 May 1997, Rick Jones wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 9 May 1997, Eduardo Goyanes wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I'm writing to satisfy my curiousity on why the llinux kernel 2.0.30 is in
> > >
> > > the unstable archives. When a.b.c and b is even the file is stable.
> > >
> > > what is the best way to upgrade the kernel for a linux Debian v1.2?
> >
> >
> > A good question. I'd also like to know what the actual current kernel
> > version is, since I see people on other list's using 2.0.35?
>
> I do admit I haven't been following too closely lately, but the reason
> 2.0.30 is not in stable is more than likely because it is a pretty major
> adittion to the 2.0 kernels. The TCP/IP stack got many patches to improve
> speed. If we are up to 0.35 already then I'd say whoever decided not to
> put 0.30 in bo made the right choice :>
>
Also, there is a pre-2.0.31 patch around that (supposted to) fixes the
2.0.30
*socket not close* problem. Another reason 2.0.30 should be in hamm :)
Lawrence,
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: