On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 07:44:40AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote: > On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 09:26:31AM -0500, Colin Watson wrote: > > > Is there any compromise we can reach *without* applying hacks that > > cover up the fact that glibc doesn't cope with the differently-sized > > kernel structure? > > Half tongue-in-cheek, half not: Is 2.2 a supported kernel for the > sarge release? Since the 2.4 series has stabilized, it might be time > to put thoughts into just telling people that 2.4 is Good And Right.
For a lot of architectures, 2.4 was _the_ kernel. I know it was that way for all our new architectures, and atleast sparc64 on the old architectures. -- Debian - http://www.debian.org/ Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/ Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/ Deqo - http://www.deqo.com/
