>
> >> >> In addition, IIRC, there is no out-of-kernel-tree modules for
> >> >> kernel26-lts so it's not an option for many users. Anyway, I'm
> talking
> >> >> about updates, not about downgrading few versions of the kernel :P
>
Unless I'm mistaken you're talking about something like the closed s
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 11:38 +0100, Xavier wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Emmanuel Benisty
> wrote:
> >
> > Funny thing is, as stated in my first post, I'm using Arch stock
> > kernel on only 1 machine out of 4. All of them using [testing] by the
> > way. I'm not the bad guy saying Arc
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Emmanuel Benisty wrote:
>
> Funny thing is, as stated in my first post, I'm using Arch stock
> kernel on only 1 machine out of 4. All of them using [testing] by the
> way. I'm not the bad guy saying Arch is obliged to do this or that, I
> just noticed this to be a
2009/12/15 Ng Oon-Ee :
> On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 16:58 +0700, Emmanuel Benisty wrote:
>> 2009/12/15 Ng Oon-Ee :
>> > A simple rebuild? At the very least there's the additional efforts of
>> > multiple tests by a variety of devs/TUs, as well as additional
>> > bug-finding/fixing time for bugs brought
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 16:58 +0700, Emmanuel Benisty wrote:
> 2009/12/15 Ng Oon-Ee :
> > A simple rebuild? At the very least there's the additional efforts of
> > multiple tests by a variety of devs/TUs, as well as additional
> > bug-finding/fixing time for bugs brought up by these minor version
> >
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Emmanuel Benisty wrote:
> yes, that would solve the problem. but that's not the way the kernel
> update process is designed in Arch. also there are still some blockers
> ATM (lirc for example)
And that is why the .32 kernel is not in [core] yet. As I understand
it
2009/12/15 Ng Oon-Ee :
> On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 14:51 +0700, Emmanuel Benisty wrote:
>> 2009/12/15 Ng Oon-Ee :
>> > On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 14:25 +0700, Emmanuel Benisty wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> As far as I can remember i.e. quite far but also super blurry, as soon
>> >> as a new kernel version hi
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 14:51 +0700, Emmanuel Benisty wrote:
> 2009/12/15 Ng Oon-Ee :
> > On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 14:25 +0700, Emmanuel Benisty wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> As far as I can remember i.e. quite far but also super blurry, as soon
> >> as a new kernel version hits [testing], the [current] ver
2009/12/15 Ng Oon-Ee :
> On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 14:25 +0700, Emmanuel Benisty wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> As far as I can remember i.e. quite far but also super blurry, as soon
>> as a new kernel version hits [testing], the [current] version won't be
>> updated anymore (it may have happened when _huge_ secu
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 14:25 +0700, Emmanuel Benisty wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As far as I can remember i.e. quite far but also super blurry, as soon
> as a new kernel version hits [testing], the [current] version won't be
> updated anymore (it may have happened when _huge_ security issues had
> been discov
Hi,
As far as I can remember i.e. quite far but also super blurry, as soon
as a new kernel version hits [testing], the [current] version won't be
updated anymore (it may have happened when _huge_ security issues had
been discovered). Today, we're stuck at .31.6 when .31.8 is out. Not a
complain as
11 matches
Mail list logo
