On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 15:11:41 PST, David Stern wrote:
>
> I didn't mean to imply that it was that important, but according to that READ
> ME (see "Debian's libc6 method"), it looks like that should've been changed b
> eginning with kernel-[headers,source]-2.0.32 . That seems like such a minor
> is
On 01 Apr 1998 16:00:51 CST, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"David" == David Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> David> Then does the kernel-* package information (whatever it's
> David> called) needs to be updated?
> --8> -
> David> Description: Linux kernel source. This pack
Hi,
>>"David" == David Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
David> Then does the kernel-* package information (whatever it's
David> called) needs to be updated?
--8> -
David> Description: Linux kernel source. This package provides the
David> source code for the Linux kernel, as well a
On 01 Apr 1998 12:27:13 CST, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The kernel is delibrately independent of any kernel related
> header files you may have installed (or that libc6 uses). It is OK to
> compile 2.0.33 on your machine.
That's good.
> The newer kernel-source packages do not provide kern
Hi,
The kernel is delibrately independent of any kernel related
header files you may have installed (or that libc6 uses). It is OK to
compile 2.0.33 on your machine.
The newer kernel-source packages do not provide kernel-headers
anymore, since the kernel-source package is archi
Hi,
The 2.0.32 kernel did wonderful things for my adaptec 2940-uw, but
2.0.33 has been out for quite a while now, and I was thinking about
compiling a new kernel. I'm not at all sure how libc6-dev 's
dependency on "stable" 2.0.32 kernel-headers pertains to compiling a
2.0.33 kernel. Is 2.0.3
6 matches
Mail list logo
