Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Fri, 9 May 1997, Rick Jones wrote: > > > On Fri, 9 May 1997, Eduardo Goyanes wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I'm writing to satisfy my curiousity on why the llinux kernel 2.0.30 is in > > > > > > the unstable archives. When a.b.c and b is even the file is stable. > > > > > > what is the best way to upgrade the kernel for a linux Debian v1.2? > > > > > > A good question. I'd also like to know what the actual current kernel > > version is, since I see people on other list's using 2.0.35? > > I do admit I haven't been following too closely lately, but the reason > 2.0.30 is not in stable is more than likely because it is a pretty major > adittion to the 2.0 kernels. The TCP/IP stack got many patches to improve > speed. If we are up to 0.35 already then I'd say whoever decided not to > put 0.30 in bo made the right choice :> >
Also, there is a pre-2.0.31 patch around that (supposted to) fixes the 2.0.30 *socket not close* problem. Another reason 2.0.30 should be in hamm :) Lawrence, -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .