[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: kernel-headers-2.0.32 vs. kernel-headers-2.0.33

On Sun, 12 Apr 1998, Tamas Papp wrote:

> > Oh, well then just --force depends!
> It's NOT the solution, just a treatment of the sympthom. I'm asking
> whether there is a real reason or is it a mistake.

As far as I know, the official kernel for Debian-2.0 is 2.0.32

2.0.33 is known to cause all sorts of problems including lockups, memory
leaks, memory corruption, disk corruption, and network issues.  If you
would read the linux-kernel mailing list archives, you will find stated
many times by the kernel developers, if you do not absolutely need 2.0.33,
do not use it.  It might work just fine on your system but it has shown to
have terrible results on others.  

Having said all of that, 2.0.34 should be out shortly and it fixes many
problems. So yeah, libc6 should probably depend 2.0.32 or HIGHER and not
2.0.32 exactly. In the meantime, it prevents people that do not know what
they are doing from upgrading to 2.0.33 which is proabably desireable and
keeps the number of complaints about system lockups and the like to a
minimum on this list.

People have got to understand that even in the release kernels, just
because a release has a higher number does NOT mean that it is better. It
just means that it is DIFFERENT than the one before it. I seem to remember
that 2.0.15 or .16 was a complete disaster.

The advice from the kernel hackers is use 2.0.29 or 2.0.32

In my personal opinion, everything associated with 2.0.33 should be moved
to project/experimental where you can still get it if you want it but it
does not show up in the average user's selection display. 

George Bonser

If I had a catchy quip, it would be here.

Debian/GNU Linux ... the maintainable operating system.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: