> On 14 Aug, this message from Mike Fedyk echoed through cyberspace: > > For the machines that I *really* need to humm away, and keep working I'll > > use 2.2. > > > > For 2.4, which tree breaks the least? Hopefully, there is a tree that will > > supply a bootable kernel that doesn't break core functionality depending on > > the time of day... >
On Sun, Aug 19, 2001 at 10:06:18AM +0200, Michel Lanners wrote: > I am quite happy with BenH's tree. As long as disk space permits, I keep > old trees around, and especially one marked as 'good' ;-). That's the > kernel I run for day-to-day use, when not trying out newer kernels. > > That is at this time probably the best approach to 2.4 kernels: try > BenH's kernels for some time, and stick to one that works well for you. > Ok, I'll do that... I'm currently on the debian-powerpc, LKML and linuxppc-dev mailing lists. Are there any others I should monitor to keep up with the latest changes on PPC 2.4 kernels? TIA, Mike
