Joel Konkle-Parker wrote:
> >Sounds right to me.
> >
> >Separate, but related, question. Is it ok for us to do a bin-NMU'ish build
> >of boot-floppies for ia64 so that we can move to a new kernel image on a
> >woody
> >point release? We would *really* like to get rid of the 2.4.17 bits in
> >woody
> >and replace them with a fresher 2.4 version that works on more ia64
> >systems and
> >has been better tested... When we released woody, precious few ia64
> >systems
> >were "in the wild" and we've learned a lot since then...
>
> Without restricting this to ia64, what about adding a later kernel
> version to woody overall? I don't think it needs to change any existing
> packages... it would just be adding a new one for those who would like
> to use it. A 2.4.20 or later kernel would take care of a lot of hardware
> problems caused by the age of stable.
That'll increas woody size-wise, hence a no-go.
Regards,
Joey
--
Life is too short to run proprietary software. -- Bdale Garbee
