On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Nathan E Norman wrote: > On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 02:42:43PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 10:54:57AM -0800, Xeno Campanoli wrote: > > > Mike Fedyk wrote: > > > > > > > > All that the package supplies is the kernel. It will be as stable as > > > > any > > > > other kernel package wheather it is in stable or not (it's the official > > > > 2.2.20) so what's your prob? Maybe you should check before you assume > > > > that > > > > just because it's in testing that it's not stable. > > > > > > I'll keep that in mind. If it is really that difficult for it to go > > > through the process to become formalized as stable, then is that > > > difficulty all wasted effort? > > > > Debian's release/revision (from stable to stable) process is much slower > > than the kernel's. That's a known fact. > > > > If you want to wait... that's up to you. If you want more recent stuff > > (including kernels packaged by debian) you should use testing. > > [ not sure if the mail-followup-to: header is supposed to cc: two ppl; > if not I apologize ] > > Erm, I don't quite follow this. If you need the new PHP, then yes, > testing is about your only out. But if all you need is a new kernel, > what's wrong with grabbing the kernel source from kernel.org and compiling > using make-kpkg? New kernel, all the benefits of debian packaging ...
Personally, I compile and install kernels by hand (i.e. make menuconfig; make bzImage; make install) What's the advantage of using make-kpkg? I use stable/2.2.20 on my servers and testing/2.4 or 2.5 on development boxes. -- Martin Orr "Cogitavi ergo fui." Linux Administrator, Methodist College Belfast The opinions expressed in this e-mail are mine personally, and should not be interpreted as representing those of the College or the CCC unless explicitly stated otherwise.
