Re: debian vs. kernel.org kernels: what to choose?

[Andreas Goesele <Goesele@hfph.mwn.de>]

Lee Braiden <jel@tundra.ath.cx> writes:

> On Tuesday 28 Jun 2005 22:37, Andreas Goesele wrote:
>> What is recommended in a case lake that? Using unpatched kernel.org
>> sources or taking the patched sources from unstable or testing? What
>> are the advantages and disadvantages? Are there other alternatives?
>
> If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  The most tested kernels with
> debian software are debian kernels, so if they work, stick with
> them.

Yes. But what if they *are* broken (like the 2.6.8 one). You then
would recommend a Debian kernel over a generic one, even if the Debian
one has to be from a different Debian version (unstable instead of
stable in this case)? Are there no problems to be expected because of
the difference of versions?

Andreas Goesele

-- 
Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur et non datur,
nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est.
                                      Augustinus, De doctrina christiana