Bdale Garbee wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin Watson) writes:
This is not a matter of upgrading the boot disk images used in woody.
It's a matter of syncing up the source used to build the already-working
images. It would be much better if this could happen without the
necessity for 3.0.24 or whatever, since there really should be no need
to get all architectures to rebuild boot-floppies just to tweak woody's
Packages and Sources files.
Sounds right to me.
Separate, but related, question. Is it ok for us to do a bin-NMU'ish build
of boot-floppies for ia64 so that we can move to a new kernel image on a woody
point release? We would *really* like to get rid of the 2.4.17 bits in woody
and replace them with a fresher 2.4 version that works on more ia64 systems and
has been better tested... When we released woody, precious few ia64 systems
were "in the wild" and we've learned a lot since then...
Without restricting this to ia64, what about adding a later kernel
version to woody overall? I don't think it needs to change any existing
packages... it would just be adding a new one for those who would like
to use it. A 2.4.20 or later kernel would take care of a lot of hardware
problems caused by the age of stable.
--
Joel Konkle-Parker
Webmaster [Ballsome.com]
E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone [662-518-1636]
