Re: Why 2.2 kernel instead of 2.4
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 02:10:17PM -0700, Xeno Campanoli wrote:
> Actually, I can't get 2.2.20 by default. I don't see it on stable, and
> last time I asked about it I was told to get it off "testing". Kindof
> bad since security listings strongly recommend updating production
> systems to 2.2.20.
>
> There is definitely some unfortunate imperfection in maintenance of
> stable, IMHO.
It's not perfect, mostly because there are only a very few people
working on stable maintenance. (That said, you only *want* a very few
people working on it - if there were more, it probably wouldn't be
stable any more.)
> Nevertheless, I'm still happy to put up with Debian's foibles, as it has
> a lot of nice features and I think the whole environment is very
> promising. I keep saying I hope to help out more some day, and I'm not
> there yet, but I hope to, and more development and QA help is what
> Debian really needs.
Yes yes yes. The QA team is pretty overloaded, from my point of view -
there are a lot more things we could be doing if we only had the time
and the organization.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: