Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Perhaps the last two kernels of the stable tree(s) is good.
> We have more kernels now because 2.0.X didn't die after 2.2.X was
> released. Doesn't that argue that 2.2.X wasn't ready?
This could also be caused by the fact that someone, though he might be
tempted to upgra
On Mon, 20 Sep 1999, John Lapeyre wrote:
> Some people have suggested providing a package, say 2.2, with all
> the 2.2.x source patches. (I didn't look at the size, but the patches are
> sometimes small and sometimes 1.5 MB). It is not too inconvenient to
> apply the patches to get to a spec
On Mon, 20 Sep 1999, Hirling Endre wrote:
endre>On Sun, 19 Sep 1999, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
endre>
endre>> which would reduce the effort of the ftp maintainer and speed up
endre>> upgrading our ftp archive from 2.2.12 to 2.2.13. The dependencies
endre>> between the kernels and the kernel dependi
On Sun, 19 Sep 1999, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> which would reduce the effort of the ftp maintainer and speed up
> upgrading our ftp archive from 2.2.12 to 2.2.13. The dependencies
> between the kernels and the kernel depending modules could be realized
> using versioned dependencies, couldn't th
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Maybe I don't see all the problems, but why don't we name the packages
>> kernel-{doc,headers,image,source}-2.0 2.0.38-
>> kernel-{doc,headers,image,source}-2.2 2.2.12-
> This stops people from having multiple versions of 2.? kernels i
Roland Rosenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe I don't see all the problems, but why don't we name the packages
> kernel-{doc,headers,image,source}-2.0 2.0.38-
> kernel-{doc,headers,image,source}-2.2 2.2.12-
This stops people from having multiple versions of 2.? kernels
On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, Edward Betts wrote:
> My suggestion would be:
>
> kernel-{doc,headers,image,source}-2.0.38
> kernel-{doc,headers,image,source}-2.2.12
>
> Can anybody provide arguements against just having two kernels?
Maybe I don't see all the problems, but why don't we name the packages
> I'm not objectionable to a 2.3.x, but I really don't think it's a good
> idea.
Hey...my Debian Ultra SPARC system *loves* the 2.3.x kernel a heck of a lot
better than the 2.2.x strain.
I think that for unstable a version (or 2 depending of needs) of each
kernel tree would be nice...but for s
On Fri, Sep 17, 1999 at 07:25:15PM +0100, Edward Betts wrote:
> > Can't we keep the number down to something more manageable, say 4 at
> > most?
>
> We now have:
>
> kernel-{doc,headers,image,source}-2.0.35
> kernel-{doc,headers,image,source}-2.0.36
> kernel-{doc,headers,image,source}-2.2.1
> ker
On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, Brian Mays wrote:
> Perhaps we should keep the last two versions of each branch? In this
> case, 2.0.35, 2.0.36, 2.2.10, and 2.2.12 (which is in Incoming). I
> don't know. Let's see whether anyone objects to just keeping two
> versions around.
That seems reasonable. O
John Lapeyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In another thread, I am dealing with exactly this problem. My
> machine hangs with 2.0.37 and 2.2.x, but is OK with 2.0.36. But had
> to take a piece of driver code from 2.0.37. There are quite a few new
> issues arising from two gcc branches and
On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, Brian Mays wrote:
brian>
brian>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian Mays) writes:
brian>
brian>>> Once 2.2.12 makes it out of Incoming, we will have 8 kernel
brian>>> versions in the unstable distribution? Do we REALLY need to
brian>>> provide that many versions of the
Edward Betts wrote:
> My suggestion would be:
>
> kernel-{doc,headers,image,source}-2.0.38
> kernel-{doc,headers,image,source}-2.2.12
>
> Can anybody provide arguements against just having two kernels?
1- Sometimes a new `stable' kernel introduces new bugs or
problems. (Didn't Debian recom
Brian Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Once 2.2.12 makes it out of Incoming, we will have 8 kernel versions in
> the unstable distribution? Do we REALLY need to provide that many
> versions of the kernel??
>
> I hate to complain, but every time a new version of the PCMCIA modules
> is released,
Guy Maor wrote:
> What about just keeping the last 2.0.x and the last 2.2.x ?
I agree. One 2.0.x, one 2.2.x, eventually one 2.[34].x version.
This has been discussed before, people agreed that there's too much of
the kernel packages in there. You're the FTP admin, please act.
Brian Mays wrote:
>
> > Once 2.2.12 makes it out of Incoming, we will have 8 kernel versions in
> > the unstable distribution? Do we REALLY need to provide that many
> > versions of the kernel??
>
> What about just keeping the last 2.0.x and the last 2.2.x ? It's also
> a lot of space on the ftp site.
And maybe on
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian Mays) writes:
>> Once 2.2.12 makes it out of Incoming, we will have 8 kernel
>> versions in the unstable distribution? Do we REALLY need to
>> provide that many versions of the kernel??
> "Guy" == Guy Maor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What ab
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian Mays) writes:
> Once 2.2.12 makes it out of Incoming, we will have 8 kernel versions in
> the unstable distribution? Do we REALLY need to provide that many
> versions of the kernel??
What about just keeping the last 2.0.x and the last 2.2.x ? It's also
a lot of space on
Once 2.2.12 makes it out of Incoming, we will have 8 kernel versions in
the unstable distribution? Do we REALLY need to provide that many
versions of the kernel??
I hate to complain, but every time a new version of the PCMCIA modules
is released, I have to build a set of packages for EACH of thes
19 matches
Mail list logo
