On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 04:30:21PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Probably not. But That's why no one is talking about making > 2.4 the default kernel. We package it up, we put i warnings, and we > let it out for those of us who can really use it.
Those can really use it are those who can download the code, fix missing dependencies in potato for a 2.4 kernel and compile 2.4 themseleves. They are also those who can deal with the problems an immature kernel can bring. That binary in potato, even with those big disclaimers, can be a threat. Say we ship a 2.4-pre3 binary, and it has a fs corruption bug. You can not modify the disclaimer in a burnt CD to talk about that major threat in the kernel. Many just press "ok" at the warning screen and install the "Latest and the Greatest". When their fs rottens down, we'll have to read the flame in debian-devel. And that kind of situations would harm "slightly" our "rock solid" reputation. Jordi -- Jordi Mallach Pérez || [EMAIL PROTECTED] || Rediscovering Freedom, ka Oskuro in RL-MUD || [EMAIL PROTECTED] || Using Debian GNU/Linux http://sindominio.net GnuPG public information: pub 1024D/917A225E telnet pusa.uv.es 23 73ED 4244 FD43 5886 20AC 2644 2584 94BA 917A 225E
pgpNQ4Js4EcAR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
