Re: 2.2rev3 CDs (was Re: Stable Release plan)
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:37:33PM +0200, Bernd Hentig wrote: AFAIK, the only kernels worth having in either binary or source are (in release order) 2.0.36, 2.0.17, 2.0.19, 2.4.2. All others are You don't like *any* of the 2.2 series? it looks like a typo to me 2.0.36, 2.2.17, 2.2.19, 2.4.2 Yeah, sure this was a typo :) Sorry folks, I was in a hurry and probably hit the keys faster than my brain was working - need a CPU upgrade probably ;-) i am not sure why one would want 2.0.36 or 2.2.17 on cd1.. i would have put them on cd3, but that's just my opinion. from what anne originally said though, 10 kernels is certainly getting out of hand (and disk space) in a release sense. Yes. Usually I can't think of any reason to have the kernel sources of any version other than the installation kernel on the first CD. My idea was that not too many kernel source trees should be on the distribution CDs at all since they are just taking space and there won't be many people using them. Bernd -- ixsoft Softwareentwicklung und -vertrieb Bernd Hentig Unter den Buchen 22E, D-16244 Altenhof, Germany Voice ++49 333 63 46 100 Fax ++49 333 63 46 109 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2.2rev3 CDs (was Re: Stable Release plan)
Previously Nate Duehr wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:37:33PM +0200, Bernd Hentig wrote: AFAIK, the only kernels worth having in either binary or source are (in release order) 2.0.36, 2.0.17, 2.0.19, 2.4.2. You don't like *any* of the 2.2 series? Considering he said `in release order' I assume he means 2.0.36, 2.2.17, 2.2.19 and 2.4.2. Personally the only ones I would use are 2.0.39, 2.2.19 and 2.4.XacY with X and Y and high as possible. Wichert. -- / Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2.2rev3 CDs (was Re: Stable Release plan)
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 11:15:03AM +1000, jason andrade wrote: On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Nate Duehr wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:37:33PM +0200, Bernd Hentig wrote: AFAIK, the only kernels worth having in either binary or source are (in release order) 2.0.36, 2.0.17, 2.0.19, 2.4.2. All others are You don't like *any* of the 2.2 series? it looks like a typo to me 2.0.36, 2.2.17, 2.2.19, 2.4.2 I noted that after I hit send... hmm. Heh. i am not sure why one would want 2.0.36 or 2.2.17 on cd1.. i would have put them on cd3, but that's just my opinion. from what anne originally said though, 10 kernels is certainly getting out of hand (and disk space) in a release sense. I haven't looked lately, but I don't think many distros keep around too many older kernels on the installation media -- they just let people grab them from their ftp sites. Newbies don't know how to replace kernels on boot media if they have a machine that is reluctant to use a newer kernel, and hopefully the newer kernels actually perform BETTER -- but we all know that doesn't always happen... :-) have debian addressed the alleged file corruption (ext2) issue that i heard was present in 2.4.X uptil 2.4.3 ? On that question, I would have no idea. I would assume the kernel maintainers would have more info -- the debian-cd crew tries to stick to their created packages for CD's, definitely. All the best, -- Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key fingerprint = DCAF 2B9D CC9B 96FA 7A6D AAF4 2D61 77C5 7ECE C1D2 Public Key available upon request, or at wwwkeys.pgp.net and others. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2.2rev3 CDs (was Re: Stable Release plan)
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Nate Duehr wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:37:33PM +0200, Bernd Hentig wrote: AFAIK, the only kernels worth having in either binary or source are (in release order) 2.0.36, 2.0.17, 2.0.19, 2.4.2. All others are You don't like *any* of the 2.2 series? it looks like a typo to me 2.0.36, 2.2.17, 2.2.19, 2.4.2 i am not sure why one would want 2.0.36 or 2.2.17 on cd1.. i would have put them on cd3, but that's just my opinion. from what anne originally said though, 10 kernels is certainly getting out of hand (and disk space) in a release sense. have debian addressed the alleged file corruption (ext2) issue that i heard was present in 2.4.X uptil 2.4.3 ? regards, -jason -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2.2rev3 CDs (was Re: Stable Release plan)
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:37:33PM +0200, Bernd Hentig wrote: AFAIK, the only kernels worth having in either binary or source are (in release order) 2.0.36, 2.0.17, 2.0.19, 2.4.2. All others are either junk and pretty unstable or useless (at least IMHO). So, I've never really seen any use in having ancient sources in the *distribution* cds and I fear things will become worse with woody (5 CDs binary installation ?). You don't like *any* of the 2.2 series? What have you found to be the problems with them? I run them on a number of production machines at work and at home (mostly 2.2.19 now, but some older). -- Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key fingerprint = DCAF 2B9D CC9B 96FA 7A6D AAF4 2D61 77C5 7ECE C1D2 Public Key available upon request, or at wwwkeys.pgp.net and others. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2.2rev3 CDs (was Re: Stable Release plan)
"J.A. Bezemer" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry for having been this silent. In the past few days I've spent many hours on getting debian-cd ready for 2.2 rev3 (issues you mentioned, updated/ redesigned README (matching www.d.o but actually better code) and the long-promised "make-a-useful-CD1" project which involved lots of test runs and a new unexclude feature). I'm mostly finished now, a few things still need some tweaking, then I'll leave it to Phil to generate the new .iso's. Fair enough --- I'll get on to it later this evening, when I get home. The unexclude will be used to move any number of kernel sources to CDx, x=2; the source of only 2.2.19 will be on CD1. However because we currently have 10 (!!) kernel sources in potato, it looks like we're going to have a 4th CD with only 15MB on it. So, unless anyone objects, I think we'd better NOT have the sources of 2.2.10 and possibly 2.2.12 on any CD (which still leaves us 2.2.13, 2.2.15, 2.2.17, 2.2.18pre21, 2.2.18, 2.2.19pre17 and 2.2.19 -- and 2.0.36, 2.0.38 of course). Sounds like a good plan. Although I expect that means that it will take several attempts to get them to fit, since this always seems to be the case if you try to fill CDs to the limit :-/ Cheers, Phil. -- Say no to software patents! http://petition.eurolinux.org/ Philip Hands. +44 (0)20 7744 6244 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alcove -- Liberating Software http://www.alcove.com/ http://www.hands.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.uk.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
