On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 03:26:10PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Rather, I think it would mean people would be upset about 2.4 being dropped
with little official notice -- but yes, this should be announced sooner
rather than later.
The announcement of the obscolecence of the 2.4 kernels by the
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On 13 Apr 2006, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 10:28:56AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
That is stretching it. The third component of a version is
hardly a major revision.
Why?
Component in a version are major.minor.sub. Now, given
dann frazier wrote:
If for no other reason, upstream release process changes will likely
make this much more difficult. As I'm sure you know, 2.6 is being
actively developed indefinitely, as opposed to the previous method of
branching off and stabalising a development tree. Since there is no
On 9 Apr 2006, Warren Turkal wrote:
On Sunday 09 April 2006 12:14, Joey Hess wrote:
- Debian's userland has *always* supported at least the previous
major kernel version, and most often the previous two, or
sometimes I think, three major kernel versions.
I think it could be easily
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 10:28:56AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
That is stretching it. The third component of a version is
hardly a major revision.
Why?
Bastian
--
If I can have honesty, it's easier to overlook mistakes.
-- Kirk, Space Seed, stardate 3141.9
* Joey Hess:
- Debian's userland has *always* supported at least the previous major
kernel version, and most often the previous two, or sometimes I
think, three major kernel versions.
This isn't a real argument, IMHO, because upstream no longer releases
major kernel versions.
OTOH,
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 09:52:42PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Joey Hess:
- Debian's userland has *always* supported at least the previous major
kernel version, and most often the previous two, or sometimes I
think, three major kernel versions.
This isn't a real argument, IMHO,
On Thursday 13 April 2006 22:59, Steve Langasek wrote:
I think etch should support 2.4 in the sense of upgrade support only;
i.e., it should support 2.4 because we need to be able to install etch
on systems running sarge 2.4 kernels, not because we'll provide support
for 2.4 in etch.
What
On 13 Apr 2006, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 10:28:56AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
That is stretching it. The third component of a version is
hardly a major revision.
Why?
Component in a version are major.minor.sub. Now, given that
Linux 1.0 was ages ago, one
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 11:20:38PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Thursday 13 April 2006 22:59, Steve Langasek wrote:
I think etch should support 2.4 in the sense of upgrade support only;
i.e., it should support 2.4 because we need to be able to install etch
on systems running sarge 2.4
On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 02:14:58PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
- Debian's userland has *always* supported at least the previous major
kernel version, and most often the previous two, or sometimes I
think, three major kernel versions.
If for no other reason, upstream release process changes
I just wanted to comment on the 2.4 is deprecated thing. Just because
the kernel team is muttering[1] about not supporting the 2.4 kernel does
not mean that Debian as a project has decided not to support users using
their own versions of this kernel. As Steve notes in #361024, we have to
support
Not that my opinion means much, but...
On Sunday 09 April 2006 12:14, Joey Hess wrote:
*snip*
- Debian's userland has *always* supported at least the previous major
kernel version, and most often the previous two, or sometimes I
think, three major kernel versions.
I think it could be
13 matches
Mail list logo
