On Wed, 2003-12-24 at 05:13, Christian Gut wrote: > I am using it on more than one box and i spoke with some people that > have no problems either. Again: I think vanilla should reflect the state > of kernel.org. > > I did not hear any person i spoke to that had problems with 2.6 so that > he/she stayed with 2.4 except one using some proprietary modules. I too > run gentoo on servers and I won't move to 2.6 in the near future, but I > indeed think it should go to vanilla. > > And there are many testers i think. >
It died horribly on my Sony Vaio, and it died horribly on nForce3 box. 2 out of my 3 x86 boxes required tweaking to get it to work. I wouldn't force that on users if you paid me. Bumping an ebuild from 2.4, to 2.6 with the same name will cause some confusion as stated previously it requires addition ebuilds to make some things work, that just worked in 2.4 > Note: I did not request to push gentoo-sources to 2.6 but the > vanilla-sources. 2.6.0 is no development-sources anymore since Linus > released it. I am sure there are problems with it as with lots of new > versions of other software. > > In my opinion gentoo-sources should be the fully compatible and so on > but vanilla should be vanilla as it comes from kernel.org. Well, last I checked you still can get vanilla 2.4 kernels from kernel.org so this isn't a factor =) trance
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
