Re: Updates to busybox
Michael-John Turner <mj@energetic.uct.ac.za> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 07:53:12PM +0200 Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> > The bootdisk will copy the 2.2 kernel and if you downgrade the kernel
> > a lot will break. You won´t have swap and you won´t even be able to
> > mount any ext2 partition. Even if you get the linux to ever boot with
> > a 2.0 kernel several basic tools will fail.
>
> True. The problem is that (AFAIK) 2.0.xx will still ship with potato,
> along with various 2.2 kernels. A person could, after installation,
> install a 2.0 kernel and to accomodate this, it would be nice if
> during the installation they were given the option of creating 2.0 or
> 2.2-compatible filesystems/swap areas.
I agree that this would be desirable.
> > If you want a 2.0 kernel, you need slink. Potato just won´t work, so
> > we should not care too much about such problems. A note somewhere
> > should be fine.
>
> But if we're shipping 2.0 as part of the distro, we should try and
> accomodate it as much as possible (within limits of course). If 2.0
> is being dropped for potato, my whole argument falls away of course
> and I'll go and sit in the corner and keep quiet :)
The issue of whether or not we strive for both 2.0 and 2.2 linux
kernel compatability in general is a potato release manager / leader
issue, not an issue for this list.
I personally think that we should strive to be as agnostic as possible
about what kernel the user is running, within reasonable limits.
--
.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
Reply to: