On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 01:33:24PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
Package: kernel-image-2.6-686
Version: 2.6.5-2
Severity: normal
not one single one of the 2.6 kernels - 2.6.5, 2.6.6, 2.6.7, 2.6.8,
2.6.9, 2.6.10, 2.6.11 nor 2.6.12 - can be installed on a system with
less than
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 03:19:25AM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 05:52:54PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 12:45:48AM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 03:51:22PM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
My firewall/mail gateway/shell host for 2-3 people is an old P90 with 40
mb of ram. It works well with Debian and I see no reason to upgrade the
hardware. Woody installer worked perfectly back in the days and
dist-upgrade to Sarge did too.
I bet there are tons of home/small office gateways with
On Tuesday 26 July 2005 02:06, Steve Langasek wrote:
I believe Joey Hess is the person who has the best handle on what the
actual minimum requirements are for installing sarge. Joey, do you
have anything we could add to the sarge release notes for this, if it's
not already in there?
The drop
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 09:45, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 03:51:22PM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
It would probably be a good idea to record what ought to work in any
given release and maybe have an ongoing idea what it should be. The
answer might be architecture
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 12:45:48AM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 03:51:22PM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
It would probably be a good idea to record what ought to work in any given
release and maybe have an ongoing idea what it should be. The answer might
Package: kernel-image-2.6-686
Version: 2.6.5-2
Severity: normal
not one single one of the 2.6 kernels - 2.6.5, 2.6.6, 2.6.7, 2.6.8,
2.6.9, 2.6.10, 2.6.11 nor 2.6.12 - can be installed on a system with
less than 48mb of RAM - because of the hungry memory requirements
of the initial ram disk.
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
telling people to roll their own kernel (mr horms) isn't an
acceptable option, either. i may be able to do that (mr horms)
but other people won't be able to.
you going (mr horms) to tell me and people like me that i
should throw away
Luke,
Sorry for the previous terse replies to your bug reports #319878 and #319823.
The debian-kernel team gets a lot of email/bugs and sometimes is quick to
response/close bugs without a lot of explanation.
I think what horms was trying to say was that your bug report listed 2.6.5 as
the
Jurij Smakov writes...
Honestly, it's a volunteer project and if you want support for something
that's not there, the best way is just to roll up your sleeves. Flaming
people will never get you anywhere.
Our priorities are our users and free software
The user's original bug report was
hi jurij,
i invite you to think ahead to when the 2.4 kernel is no longer
maintained.
i invite you to consider where debian will stand at that time with
respect to older hardware.
should debian be possible to install on older hardware in two,
three years time, or should people who are not as
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 03:51:22PM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
It would probably be a good idea to record what ought to work in any given
release and maybe have an ongoing idea what it should be. The answer might be
architecture specific? ISTR either the d-i team or apt/dpkg/aptitude trying
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 12:03:48PM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
Luke,
Sorry for the previous terse replies to your bug reports #319878 and #319823.
The debian-kernel team gets a lot of email/bugs and sometimes is quick to
response/close bugs without a lot of explanation.
*sigh* yeh i know.
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 03:51:22PM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton writes...
i invite you to think ahead to when the 2.4 kernel is no longer
maintained.
i invite you to consider where debian will stand at that time with
respect to older hardware.
should debian
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 05:06:49PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Incidentally, I have no idea why this bug was filed against
kernel-image-2.6-686;
... because i believed it to be a... wossisname... dummy package
(2.6.N ... 2.6.NN)
oops.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 12:45:48AM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 03:51:22PM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
for this P120 (whatever) i have *shudder* had to use a
2.2.10-compact-pci kernel.
there exists a kernel-image-2.4.18-bf2.4 (which i might try at some
Hi,
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
hi jurij,
i invite you to think ahead to when the 2.4 kernel is no longer
maintained.
i invite you to consider where debian will stand at that time with
respect to older hardware.
should debian be possible to install on older
17 matches
Mail list logo
