[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Another "testing" vs "unstable" question

Monique Y. Mudama wrote:

On 2004-06-23, Ernie McCracken penned:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 09:35:48 -0600, Monique Y. Mudama
<spam@bounceswoosh.org> wrote:

where I work we still have a 7.0 box in place: I chose 7.0 over 7.1
so as to have a 2.2 kernel as standard (required for a sat card).
It seems odd to me to choose a release based on the kernel, but okay.
It seems *very* odd that you're telling us that RedHat switched major
kernel numbers for a minor release.

The vendor's driver required a 2.2 kernel. The primary alternative that occurred to me at the time was 7.1 with the older kernel, but that wasn't a standard configuration.

Odd though it may be, it is true.  RedHat 7.1 was the first RH release
to use the 2.4 kernel. :-)

7.0:  http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2000/press_rhl7.html
7.1:  http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2001/press_sevenone.html

Oh, I believe it.  It just serves to emphasize, in my mind, the idea
that redhat and debian work from two completely different theories.
Minor revision numbers shouldn't contain those kinds of changes!

Oh? Isn't Sarge to be released as 3.1?

I'm pretty sire that the standard kernel with woody is 2.2 though 2.4 is tolerated. I say "tolerated" because 2.2 is recommended.

According to the Monique theory, if Sarge is released as 3.1 then it should still have a 2.2 kernel. I'm sure I've seen discussion that it may contain 2.6.

The kernel doesn't provide programmers' APIs, the kernel's ABI is wrapped by (g)libc, and that's what is important.

I wonder what's involved in dropping a BSD kernel in?

Reply to: