Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 09:25:14AM -0500, Brian White wrote:
> > There is precedent for this as there is a 2.1.125 package in slink now.
> > I think it's not a big deal if there are big disclaimers attached that
> > slink is not a 2.2 targetted dist.
>
> Disclamers are of marginal use. It will appear as installable and tell
> people to "install me" just as an elevator buttun tells people "push me".
> Adding a disclaimer is like taking a door with a big, "pull me" handle
> and putting a "push" sign above it. The "affordance" of the handle
> talks far more loudly than the sign.
>
> There is good reason to have new kernels in "unstable", but we're
> talking "stable", here.
Perhaps the 2.1.125 kernel source should be removed from archs which
don't use it then?
--
"I'm working in the dark here." "Yeah well rumor has it you do your best
work in the dark."
-- Earth: Final Conflict
Reply to: