Op di, 15-03-2005 te 11:43 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:28:15PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 16:09 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek:
> > > You do know that m68k is the only architecture still carrying around
> > > 2.*2* kernels in sarge?
>
> > False. See sparc32.
>
> $ madison -a sparc -s testing -r 'kernel.*2\.2'
> $
>
> ?
Hm. I was going on rumors; if sparc32 has been fixed in the mean time,
apologies.
> > Even if it is true that we do still carry 2.2 into sarge, that is only
> > for Mac; not for any of the other subarchitectures.
>
> Nevertheless, it is a factor that contributes negatively to the
> maintainability of a stable release...
Of course. It's only because people are currently working on supporting
2.6 for mac (and they're getting places) that I think having it still
supported on 2.2 is justified; if that was not the case, I'd have
suggested dropping it ages ago.
--
EARTH
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
soda water | tequila
WATER
-- with thanks to fortune
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
