On Fri, Sep 17, 1999 at 07:25:15PM +0100, Edward Betts wrote:
> > Can't we keep the number down to something more manageable, say 4 at
> > most?
>
> We now have:
>
> kernel-{doc,headers,image,source}-2.0.35
> kernel-{doc,headers,image,source}-2.0.36
> kernel-{doc,headers,image,source}-2.2.1
> kernel-{doc,headers,image,source}-2.2.5
> kernel-{doc,headers,image,source}-2.2.7
> kernel-{doc,headers,image,source}-2.2.9
> kernel-{doc,headers,image,source}-2.2.10
> kernel-{doc,headers,image,source}-2.2.12
>
> My suggestion would be:
>
> kernel-{doc,headers,image,source}-2.0.38
> kernel-{doc,headers,image,source}-2.2.12
>
> Can anybody provide arguements against just having two kernels?
Unless someone else can demonstrate a need for 2.0.36 that will affect a
number of people, I think 2.0.38 alone would be reasonable.
I think someone said they needed 2.2.7, which kinda needs a few patches
from 2.2.8 and 2.2.10 to work as expected (2.2.7 needed a security patch
and sound was completely broken IIRC..)
I'm not objectionable to a 2.3.x, but I really don't think it's a good
idea.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian GNU/Linux developer
GnuPG: 2048g/3F9C2A43 - 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3
PGP 2.6: 2048R/50BDA0ED - E8 D6 84 81 E3 A8 BB 77 8E E2 29 96 C9 44 5F BE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
But modifying dpkg is infeasible, and we've agreed to, among other things,
keep the needs of our users at the forefront of our minds. And from a
user's perspective, something that keeps the system tidy in the normal
case, and works *now*, is much better than idealistic fantasies like a
working dpkg.
-- Manoj Srivastava
pgpgQvj5FZxDM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
