Re: Another "testing" vs "unstable" question
On 2004-06-24, John Summerfield penned:
>
> 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.
Okay, you're right; my bad. TBH, I haven't paid much (any?) attention
to the numbering scheme because the names are easier to remember for me.
If sarge is to be 3.1, then I agree that the numbering scheme is
non-obvious. I hope there's a document out there somewhere that
explains why, but I'm too lazy to look it up.
>
> The kernel doesn't provide programmers' APIs, the kernel's ABI is
> wrapped by (g)libc, and that's what is important.
>
> thinks. I wonder what's involved in dropping a BSD kernel in?
I'm pretty sure there's a project underway somewhere for exactly that;
or maybe it was more like a BSD system using the dpkg/apt packaging
tools. I don't konw what it's called, though. I've never used BSD,
mostly because I am so happy and familiar with the debian way of
upgrading; bsd + debian would be a powerful lure.
--
monique
Reply to: