Re: stable or not stable?
On Fri, 9 May 1997 kuzminsk@hugin.sebs.net wrote:
> It's practically a moot point now with bo so close to release, but
> in the future perhaps it would make sense to include the latest and
> greatest (and thus presumably the most stable) 2.0 kernel in the stable
> distribution, and the latest 2.1 kernel in the unstable distribution?
I agree. I thought I'd seen someone using 2.1.36 but thought it was a
typo. I would like to see the absolute latest kernel's in unstable.
Seems to me that's what it's for. I seems to be used more as pre-stable
than unstable (a subtle difference).
--Rick
rickya@siservices.net
--
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: