* Joey Hess:
> - Debian's userland has *always* supported at least the previous major
>kernel version, and most often the previous two, or sometimes I
>think, three major kernel versions.
This isn't a real argument, IMHO, because upstream no longer releases
major kernel versions.
OTOH,
dann frazier wrote:
> If for no other reason, upstream release process changes will likely
> make this much more difficult. As I'm sure you know, 2.6 is being
> actively developed indefinitely, as opposed to the previous method of
> branching off and stabalising a development tree. Since there is
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On 13 Apr 2006, Bastian Blank wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 10:28:56AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> That is stretching it. The third component of a version is
> >> hardly a "major" revision.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Component in a version are major.minor.su
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 03:26:10PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Rather, I think it would mean people would be upset about 2.4 being dropped
> with little official notice -- but yes, this should be announced sooner
> rather than later.
The announcement of the obscolecence of the 2.4 kernels by th
On Thursday 13 April 2006 16:14, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Component in a version are major.minor.sub. Now, given that
> Linux 1.0 was ages ago, one could conced that the versioning is
> Epoch.Major.Minor But claiming that 2.5.16 is majorly different from
> 2.5.15 when it comews to suppo
On 13 Apr 2006, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 10:28:56AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> That is stretching it. The third component of a version is
>> hardly a "major" revision.
>
> Why?
Component in a version are major.minor.sub. Now, given that
Linux 1.0 was ages ago
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 11:20:38PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Thursday 13 April 2006 22:59, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I think etch should support 2.4 in the sense of "upgrade support only";
> > i.e., it should support 2.4 because we need to be able to install etch
> > on systems running sarge 2.4
On Thursday 13 April 2006 22:59, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I think etch should support 2.4 in the sense of "upgrade support only";
> i.e., it should support 2.4 because we need to be able to install etch
> on systems running sarge 2.4 kernels, not because we'll provide support
> for 2.4 in etch.
Wha
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 09:52:42PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Joey Hess:
> > - Debian's userland has *always* supported at least the previous major
> >kernel version, and most often the previous two, or sometimes I
> >think, three major kernel versions.
> This isn't a real argument
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 10:28:56AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> That is stretching it. The third component of a version is
> hardly a "major" revision.
Why?
Bastian
--
If I can have honesty, it's easier to overlook mistakes.
-- Kirk, "Space Seed", stardate 3141.9
On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 02:14:58PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> - Debian's userland has *always* supported at least the previous major
>kernel version, and most often the previous two, or sometimes I
>think, three major kernel versions.
If for no other reason, upstream release process change
On Sunday 09 April 2006 12:14, Joey Hess wrote:
> - Debian's userland has *always* supported at least the previous major
> kernel version, and most often the previous two, or sometimes I
> think, three major kernel versions.
I think it could be easily argued that the last three major revisi
Not that my opinion means much, but...
On Sunday 09 April 2006 12:14, Joey Hess wrote:
*snip*
> - Debian's userland has *always* supported at least the previous major
> kernel version, and most often the previous two, or sometimes I
> think, three major kernel versions.
I think it could
I just wanted to comment on the "2.4 is deprecated" thing. Just because
the kernel team is muttering[1] about not supporting the 2.4 kernel does
not mean that Debian as a project has decided not to support users using
their own versions of this kernel. As Steve notes in #361024, we have to
support
14 matches
Mail list logo
