On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 03:46:35AM +0800, Gan Lu wrote: > On Thu, 17 May 2007 09:12:06 +0200 > Attila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mittwoch, 16. Mai 2007 21:17 waldek wrote: > > > > > Let me explain then, I thought it was obvious :-) > > > How does it compare to booting another kernel and downgrading the broken > > > one? I don't even want to mention my dell notebook with external cd drive > > > I > > > can never find. > > > IMO having two kernels is a quite clean solution but as I said that's my > > > oppinion. I don't even want to mention finding out if some other problems > > > are kernel related. > > > > I use the same because i have had some bad experiences with the distribution > > what i used before arch which has only one kernel package. That's why i > > never > > upgrade the running kernel and reboot to an other kernel before i want to do > > this. I think it is a risk which is not necessary instead of it seems that > > arch devs makes a very good job. But if a kernel panic happens after an > > upgrade and you have to solve it than from my view you don't want it a > > second > > time.-) So my hope is too that kernel26ck or another kernel package what is > > most wanted will be survive in community. > > > Yes, I do agree. kernel-laptop -desktop -sever if you want my vote. BTW, > Since we haven't supported 2.4 for a long time, why not remove 26 from the > name?
I still believe seperating out kernels for different systems is wrong, and have yet to see any evidence to support the contrary. It contradicts the goals of the kernel itself. In addition, it just increases load on maintainers. For anyone else who tries to suggest these silly names, state what you would actually put in them to differentiate them. James _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
