Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
Ben Collins <bmc@visi.net> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 10:02:52PM -0500, Brian White wrote:
> > No. We had enough problems upgrading from 2.0.35 to 2.0.36. This would
> > be a major change and have corresponding reprocussions. I'm sure it's
> > very stable, but it will have incompatibilities.
> I'm using nothing but packages from slink/sparc and I see no
> incompatibilities. Then again the box isn't running X, any of the other
> sparc devs out there have any input on which kernel provides the
> 'safest' X for sparc?
I haven't touched 2.0.x kernels for the last year on the Sparc
platform. I don't trust them. Additionally, the 2.0.35 Debian kernel
wouldn't even boot on my Sparc20 (haven't tried 2.0.36), but I've only
been running Debian on that machine for about a month (I installed by
hand with the 2.1.x kernel I was using for UltraPenguin).
X works fine on my Sparc20 and Ultra5, but I can't speak for other
systems. The Ultra 5 has run a variety of CVS kernels from about
2.1.125 to 2.2.0-pre4, and the 20 has run an even wider range of
2.1.x kernels with UP, but mostly 2.1.12x kernels with Debian.
Steve
dunham@cse.msu.edu
Reply to: