On 5/6/06, Attila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Samstag, 6. Mai 2006 10:10 Rohan Dhruva wrote: > > > kernel2-safe would be a great idea -- seeing that the kernel team > > releases new version of kernel twice a day. But that would mean more > > work for the already overloaded devs :( > > That is absolutly right and that's because i want to keep it simple. With the > experience of the kernel devs it could be possible to select one certain > stable kernel release from a certain period (2 until 6 months). And still > again this is only a suggestion not a crying for "we must have this". As you > i'm not interested that the devs have any unnecessarily work. > > Let me explain something about it from my personal view: I'm prepared for this > worst case scenario. I have two working Boot CD's (Damm Small Linux and > System Rescue CD), i know where this CD's are -) and i have a DHCP Server > running to make it easier to find the relevant informations for my network as > i boot from cd. And i have one custom kernel in reserve which i don't upgrade > very often but is good enough to start X. So in such a case i can boot and i > can surf in the web for the informations to solve my problems. > > An why i'm prepared? Not because i'm intelligent enough to know that this is > even a good idea. It is because i have the personal experience how bad it is > if you have not such things.-) That is the reason why i suggest to give users > a help but if i'm on the false way with this thoughts, no problem because i'm > definitive not perfect. > > See you, Attila >
Just use kernel26beyond, it's updated less ;) James -- iphitus - Beyond Maintainer, Arch Trusted User, Arch Developer. Home:iphitus.loudas.com _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
