"C.M. Connelly" wrote: > > "KW" == Kent West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > KW> Since I had read that 2.2.15 had problems (which is > KW> what I started with on this Mac), I downloaded the source > KW> for 2.2.16 (I couldn't find 2.2.16 on the Debian site, only > KW> older versions and 2.2.17pre6 -- why isn't 2.2.16 there? > KW> aren't the even-numbered versions stable and the odd ones > KW> developmental?) from one of the major sites (linux.org? > KW> linux.com? I don't remember now). I applied the patch and > KW> then compiled the kernel, turning on the MOL component. > > 2.2.16 also has problems, as do the first few of Alan Cox's > prepatches (at least one of them was unbuildable on PowerPC > because some symbols were missing from an include file; the latest > PowerPC stuff still isn't completely merged, but 2.2.17pre6 seems > to work fine on my machine: Linux diziet 2.2.17pre6-dartlin #1 Fri > Jun 23 01:37:27 PDT 2000 ppc unknown). > > As for the even-numbered vs. odd-numbered question, the 2.2.* > series is the stable series; 2.3.* is the current unstable series, > but will soon become the stable 2.4.* series, with 2.5.* replacing > 2.3.* as the experimental series. In other words, the second > number is the significant one for determining stable vs. unstable, > not the last. > > Lots of other people chimed in with pointers to the development > package you needed, but no one mentioned a handy tool on the > Debian Web site for determining the answer to such questions. If > you're trying to compile something and run across a missing file, > you can use the search form at the *bottom* of > <http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages> to look for them -- be > sure to set the distribution field to frozen (if you want potato) > or unstable (if you want the latest and greatest) -- once potato > is actually released, stable would work fine. The search script > will return a list of packages that contain the file you searched > for; you can then download the relevant package with APT. (You > can search for just the file name, which might return several > packages, or for the whole path (if you know it), which should > only return one or two.) > > I've actually copied the source code for both the search forms on > that page, as well as the ones for the bug tracking system, to a > local page on my system so I have a quick way of accessing various > search engines. I highly recommend doing so to anyone who might > be doing a fair amount of searching. > > CMC > > +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ > Behind the counter a boy with a shaven head stared vacantly into space, > a dozen spikes of microsoft protruding from the socket behind his ear. > +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ > C.M. Connelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] SHC, DS > +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Thanks! That's a lot of good info. Do you reckon I'd be better off going to 2.2.17 now, or is 2.2.16 acceptable enough to keep using it? I'd jump to 2.2.17, but I hate going through the configure process since there's so many options that I just don't know about. I know I'll reconfigure sometime fairly soon, but I'd just as soon not do so for a couple of weeks if 2.2.16 is acceptable enough to last that long. -- Kent West [EMAIL PROTECTED]
