On Sun, Aug 19, 2001 at 01:07:20PM -0700, Mike Fedyk wrote: > > 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?
Doesn't answer your question, but... I'd appreciate it if people would try the kernel-image-2.4.8-powerpc packages I've uploaded. There'll be 2.4.9 shortly I expect. I know of one problem in them (you may discover RTC support not getting modprobed correctly, and as a result your system time may stay off by a few hours), which I'll fix soon. Other bug reports welcome. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
