Re: Why 2.2 kernel instead of 2.4
* Grant Edwards (grante@visi.com) spake thusly:
> 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?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > 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.
I had no problems with 2.4.1[78], so I think 2.4 will be
stable enough by the time woody is released. So I'd go
with 2.4.
If you don't use devfs, iptables, and whatever else's not
compatible with 2.2, you should be able to fall back to 2.2
if Things Go Bad[tm].
Dima
--
Surely there is a polite way to say FOAD. -- Shmuel Metz
"Go forth and multiply". -- Paul Martin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: