Re: Source for 2.2.20 kernel

2003-03-17 Thread Jeffrey L. Taylor
Quoting Rob Weir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 09:41:38AM -0600, Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote: > > Quoting Nathan E Norman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Are the Debian 2.2.20 images absolutely vanilla kernels? So what I'd > > get from a Debian mirror is identical to what I'd get from > > ww

Re: Source for 2.2.20 kernel

2003-03-16 Thread Paul Johnson
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 04:42:38PM +1100, Rob Weir wrote: > No, they're not. Well, the 2.4 ones aren't, at least. Debian needs to > supply (at least) the patches *somewhere* to comply with the GPL. apt-get source kernel-source-$KVERS should get you

Re: Source for 2.2.20 kernel

2003-03-16 Thread Rob Weir
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 09:41:38AM -0600, Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote: > Quoting Nathan E Norman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Are the Debian 2.2.20 images absolutely vanilla kernels? So what I'd > get from a Debian mirror is identical to what I'd get from > www.kernel.org? No, they're not. Well, the 2.4 o

Re: Source for 2.2.20 kernel

2003-03-14 Thread Brian Nelson
"Jeffrey L. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Quoting Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 10:51:14AM -0600, Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote: >> > I'm missing something. What is the name of the source for the 2.2.20 >> > kernel? >> >> kernel-source-2.2.20

Re: Source for 2.2.20 kernel

2003-03-14 Thread Jeffrey L. Taylor
Quoting Nathan E Norman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 12:47:28AM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 10:51:14AM -0600, Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote: > > > I'm missing something. What is the name of the source for the 2.2.20 > > > kernel? > > > > kernel-source-2.2.

Re: Source for 2.2.20 kernel

2003-03-14 Thread Nathan E Norman
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 12:47:28AM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 10:51:14AM -0600, Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote: > > I'm missing something. What is the name of the source for the 2.2.20 > > kernel? > > kernel-source-2.2.20 if it's still actually in the distribution; it's > pre

Re: Source for 2.2.20 kernel

2003-03-14 Thread ronin2
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 02:47:41 -0800 Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > First, I'm surprised that stable's still shipping with 2.2. Christ, > folks, it's 2003, let's catch up stable. > > Second, you can't stop time. And as long as software's in widespread > use, it's likely actively deve

Re: Source for 2.2.20 kernel

2003-03-14 Thread Paul Johnson
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 04:14:50AM -0600, Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote: > jump to the latest 2.2.x. That's supposed to be one of the great > selling points for Linux and Debian, no forced obsolescence. You > saying that's a lie? First, I'm surprised that

Re: Source for 2.2.20 kernel

2003-03-14 Thread Jeffrey L. Taylor
Quoting Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hash: SHA1 > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 10:51:14AM -0600, Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote: > > I'm missing something. What is the name of the source for the 2.2.20 > > kernel? > > kernel-source-2.2.20 if it's still actually in the distribution; it's > pretty

Re: Source for 2.2.20 kernel

2003-03-14 Thread Paul Johnson
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 10:51:14AM -0600, Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote: > I'm missing something. What is the name of the source for the 2.2.20 > kernel? kernel-source-2.2.20 if it's still actually in the distribution; it's pretty ancient so it may be go

Re: Source for 2.2.20 kernel

2003-03-13 Thread Ernst-Magne Vindal
On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 21:25, Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote: > Quoting Jeffrey L. Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > isn't apt a good alternative to find that out? > > > > > > > Sound very reasonable, but: > > > > ~# apt-cache policy kernel-sourc

Re: Source for 2.2.20 kernel

2003-03-13 Thread Jeffrey L. Taylor
Quoting Jeffrey L. Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > isn't apt a good alternative to find that out? > > > > Sound very reasonable, but: > > ~# apt-cache policy kernel-source-2.2.20 > kernel-source-2.2.20: > Installed: (none) > Candidate: (n

Re: Source for 2.2.20 kernel

2003-03-13 Thread Jeffrey L. Taylor
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > isn't apt a good alternative to find that out? > Sound very reasonable, but: ~# apt-cache policy kernel-source-2.2.20 kernel-source-2.2.20: Installed: (none) Candidate: (none) Version Table: What mirror(s) are you using? Jeffrey -- T

Re: Source for 2.2.20 kernel

2003-03-13 Thread Oliver Fuchs
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote: > I'm missing something. What is the name of the source for the 2.2.20 > kernel? That's what comes as the default in woody and I want to tweak > it. I can find headers, patches (what good are patches w/out source > to patch?), ReiserFS and PCMCIA mo

Re: Source for 2.2.20 kernel

2003-03-13 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
isn't apt a good alternative to find that out? web:~# apt-cache search kernel-source freeswan - IPSEC utilities for FreeSWan kernel-patch-2.2-lids - LIDS Kernel Patch kernel-patch-2.4-lids - LIDS Kernel Patch kernel-source-2.2.20 - Linux kernel source for version 2.2.20 ^^

Re: Source for 2.2.20 kernel

2003-03-13 Thread Seneca
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 10:51:14AM -0600, Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote: > I'm missing something. What is the name of the source for the 2.2.20 > kernel? That's what comes as the default in woody and I want to tweak > it. I can find headers, patches (what good are patches w/out source > to patch?), Re

Source for 2.2.20 kernel

2003-03-13 Thread Jeffrey L. Taylor
I'm missing something. What is the name of the source for the 2.2.20 kernel? That's what comes as the default in woody and I want to tweak it. I can find headers, patches (what good are patches w/out source to patch?), ReiserFS and PCMCIA modules, but no source. What gives? Jeffrey -- To UN