On 2004-06-24, John Summerfield penned: > > Oh? Isn't Sarge to be released as 3.1? > > I'm pretty sire that the standard kernel with woody is 2.2 though 2.4 > is tolerated. I say "tolerated" because 2.2 is recommended. > > According to the Monique theory, if Sarge is released as 3.1 then it > should still have a 2.2 kernel. I'm sure I've seen discussion that it > may contain 2.6.
Okay, you're right; my bad. TBH, I haven't paid much (any?) attention to the numbering scheme because the names are easier to remember for me. If sarge is to be 3.1, then I agree that the numbering scheme is non-obvious. I hope there's a document out there somewhere that explains why, but I'm too lazy to look it up. > > The kernel doesn't provide programmers' APIs, the kernel's ABI is > wrapped by (g)libc, and that's what is important. > > thinks. I wonder what's involved in dropping a BSD kernel in? I'm pretty sure there's a project underway somewhere for exactly that; or maybe it was more like a BSD system using the dpkg/apt packaging tools. I don't konw what it's called, though. I've never used BSD, mostly because I am so happy and familiar with the debian way of upgrading; bsd + debian would be a powerful lure. -- monique -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
