Re: Why 2.2 kernel instead of 2.4
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 07:58:24PM -0700, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Grant Edwards wrote:
> > I notice that "woody" installs a 2.2 kernel instead of a 2.4
> > kernel. Are the reasons behind that decision?
> 2.2 was current when woody was in development.
I'm not sure what "in development" means, but 2.4 has been out
for close to a year and a half. It certainly hasn't been
stable enough for production use for that long, but I'd have a
hard time believing that woody has been frozen for that long,
since 2.2.20 has only been out for five months.
It seems that with every release cycle, the "stable" Linux
kernel becomes less and less stable. It's a sad state of
affairs when it takes a year and a half for a "stable" Linux
kernel to become stable enough to ship. :(
> > Is the plan to have "stable" 3.0 run a 2.2 kernel?
> > I'm planning on building a custom-tailored 2.4.x kernel-image
> > package for above-mentioned product, but I'm wondering if I
> > should also include a similarly configured 2.2 kernel-image...
> Your call.
It will probably end up depending on how well the 2.2 kernel
supports hot-plugging of USB devices. If I can't get that to
work, I'll probably ditch 2.2 and just ship 2.4.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com