Bdale Garbee wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin Watson) writes:
>
> > This is not a matter of upgrading the boot disk images used in woody.
> > It's a matter of syncing up the source used to build the already-working
> > images. It would be much better if this could happen without the
> > necessity for 3.0.24 or whatever, since there really should be no need
> > to get all architectures to rebuild boot-floppies just to tweak woody's
> > Packages and Sources files.
>
> Sounds right to me.
>
> Separate, but related, question. Is it ok for us to do a bin-NMU'ish build
> of boot-floppies for ia64 so that we can move to a new kernel image on a woody
> point release? We would *really* like to get rid of the 2.4.17 bits in woody
> and replace them with a fresher 2.4 version that works on more ia64 systems
> and
> has been better tested... When we released woody, precious few ia64 systems
> were "in the wild" and we've learned a lot since then...
Since this requires changes in the source, a binary NMU is not re proper
action.
Regards,
Joey
--
Life is too short to run proprietary software. -- Bdale Garbee
