Re: The nature of unstable (was: Danger Will Robinson! Danger!)
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 03:30:53PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 01:43:46PM +0000, Paul M Sargent wrote:
> >
> > ...but a distribution is designed for a particular kernel. e.g. slink is
> > designed for 2.0.x with some packages for 2.2.x support.
>
> But slink is practically completely adjusted for 2.2 already.
I know, that's what I ment. I was just saying there is some interdependancy.
I didn't mean in infer that slink didn't do 2.2. I know it does, I've used it.
> > If the kernel isn't even in the archive then potential problems aren't
> > going to be found.
>
> I wouldn't put that much `weight' in the fact that kernel is in the archive:
> kernel packages don't get upgraded to new upstream versions, so if you want
> a new kernel, you have to make the decision to install it, on your own.
But don't you think it's good to have the base system in place as soon as
possible for a new development cycle. It's putting a stake in the ground. If
somebody sees kernel-image-2.3.58 in the archive then it suggests they
should be giving it a go. That's good in my book because it's nearer the
final target than 2.2.x.
I apprecate your point that most developer would roll their own, but I'd
view it almost as a statement of intent. Maybe I'm getting irrational.
For now, on with Potato!
Paul
--
Paul Sargent
mailto: Paul.Sargent@3Dlabs.com
Reply to: