RE: Upgrading to hamm
On Wed, 15 Apr 1998, Erik A Nelson wrote:
> I have trouble with 2.0 kernels and my hardware.. I've previously had
> 2.1.83 working fine on a bo installation. For a whole variety of reasons,
> I have to reinstall, and I'd like to do so with hamm.. does anyone know of
> any problems with the newest kernels (2.1.94?) and hamm?
I had run 2.1.95 for over 4 days at peak loads up to 30 on a 486DX2-66. I
am now building 2.1.96 on that machine. 2.1.9[0-4] are best left alone.
Reports are good for .96 but you will need to edit ../kernel/kmod.c on
line 116 to get rid of a bad character that should be a space.
2.1.96 is reported to be more responsive and some sound drivers are
working again. I have had some problems with network daemons dying at
random intervals for no apparent reason. I will attempt a glibc build
with 2.1.96 headers (tried with 2.1.95 but it caused the 486 with only
16MB of ram to barf so I am waiting for the Cyrix-P150+ to become
available as it has 32MB) after I finish a dry run using the old 2.0.32
headers to make sure I can get a clean glibc compile on my system.
Linus has issued a feature freeze on 2.1.x and it is in a cleanup phase on
its way to release this summer (yay!).
George Bonser
If I had a catchy quip, it would be here.
http://www.debian.org
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: