Re: next debian stable ?
- To: Debian User List <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
- Subject: Re: next debian stable ?
- From: Paul Johnson <baloo@ursine.dyndns.org>
- Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 03:37:12 -0700
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20030501103712.GB3164@ursine.dyndns.org>
- Mail-followup-to: Debian User List <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
- In-reply-to: <87k7dbmpx0.fsf@toncho.dhh.gt.org>
- References: <20030429125444.2F9581800D8@smtp-2.hotpop.com> <20030429140711.GD479@gandalf> <3EAEC38C.1010804@davidkrider.com> <1051652329.872.52.camel@flmrroach> <3EAF108E.6000108@davidkrider.com> <20030430103058.GR2892@ursine.dyndns.org> <20030430151113.GB12041@nitpicking.com> <20030430234828.GA24646@ursine.dyndns.org> <87k7dbmpx0.fsf@toncho.dhh.gt.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 08:11:39PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> And because 2.6 packages will be available as soon as 2.6 is out. Why do
> people act like replacing the default kernel is a big deal? Your userland
> packages are thoroughly decoupled from the kernel. Hardly anything depends
> on it. That which does is well-documented.
Don't know where you got your kernel that something depends on it. A
few packages suggest it and two recommend, but nothing explicitly
depends on it.
- --
.''`. Baloo Ursidae <baloo@ursine.dyndns.org>
: :' : proud Debian admin and user
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+sPjYJ5vLSqVpK2kRAmTFAKCX09ynBXFNKEoOwFdfmzZJA7HbRACg41yK
GFKFMn/OSbOeplktZ7/guYc=
=AF8t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: