* Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006:07:14:10:52:16+0200] scribed: > helices <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > * Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006:07:13:13:47:58+0200] > > scribed: > > <snip /> > > > >> The amd64.debian.net is at the same level as sarge if you include the > >> proposed updates. The only difference to official sarge is that the > >> ftp-master hasn't pushed those proposed updates into our sarge yet > >> (for which we all hate him a bit). > > > > Also, don't forget the kernel issues. Much 64-bit hardware is quite > > new, and NOT directly supported by the kernels available in Sarge. > > Newer kernels may require else not available in Sarge; which may further > > muddy the waters ... > > So? Neither are the i386 kernels any newer. Sarge has 2.6.8 as newest > kernel across the board. > > The kernel version in sarge is not relevant to the topic of amd64 > being inofficial.
I do NOT quarrel with what you write; rather, I am making the point that Sarge _cannot_ run on much 64-bit hardware, because the older kernels do NOT support the newer hardware. Although, as you say, this has _nothing_ to do with any "official" amd64 Sarge distribution; I believe that it is important that people consider these issues prior to installing Debian on such hardware. Don't forget the origin to this thread ... -- Best Regards, helices - Dare to fix things before they break . . . - Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much we think we know. The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . . --
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
