On Sep/26/2001, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > I think that maybe he refers to the fact that, for example, you may
> > have formatted your ext2 partitions so they are incompatible with 2.0.x
> Well, I once heared about this, but never read an explanation what
> exactly causes the differences in the ext2 partitions created while
> running a 2.0.x kernel and why they have been introduced.
The features are documented in mke2fs(8), under "-O" (or it seems, for
what I've seen). They don't seem to be too useful (unless I'm missing
something), but anyway they are there.
> Well, iptables is only available for kernel 2.4.x, but with kernel 2.2.x
> you can still build a firewall with ipchains or ipfwadm if you still use
Yes, but it's not the same building a firewall with 2.4.x and building
a firewall with 2.2.x or 2.0.x. There are a few things that you can do only
with 2.4, not with lower versions. Stateful firewalling, for example.
[BSD]
> > seriously take charge of one :-) (but again, that's only my opinion; and I'm
> Well, I wouldn't agree with you, but that's an other discussion which
> doesn't belong on this list.
Yes. Anyway, I don't think that this was a wrong attitude. As I said,
if something is easier upgrading to 2.4.x, I think it's not bad to depend on
it. Maybe there should be a "easy" 2.4.x-dependant bind9-chroot package, and
another one, 2.2-2.0 compatible. There are two smbfs packages in a similar
state, so why couldn't be two bind9-chroot packages too?
--
Roberto Suarez Soto
