On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 10:07:38AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote: > #include <hallo.h> > Jim Westveer wrote on Thu Apr 04, 2002 um 05:24:24PM: > > > And last, woody ought to be 2.2 based and not 2.4 based ... but since I > > > also find it lame to use 2.2.x by default nowadays ... > > > > > > > I disagree, 2.4.x kernels have been out for over 2 years.....we should > > not release a "new" version of Debian with such an outdated kernel ! > > [appologies in advance to the boot-floppy group for all their hard work] > > Agreed. The decission, which flavor has to be on the first CD, is done > by debian-cd's scripts, see > /usr/share/debian-cd/tools/boot/woody/boot-i386. CD distributors can > change it if they like. > IMHO bf2.4 is stable enough to be used as installation > kernel and is used by most people (Impression, looking at submitter's > data of recent bug/success reports). > > But who makes this decission for the CD Nr.1? DPL? > > BTW: I personaly think that "compact" on the second CD does not make > sence, its primarily goal is smart floppy-based installation.
The DPL makes no such decisions. If anything, the technical committee would. But I think the port maintainers obviously have the most say in this. Ben -- Debian - http://www.debian.org/ Linux 1394 - http://linux1394.sourceforge.net/ Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
