> > On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:37:33PM +0200, Bernd Hentig wrote:
> > > AFAIK, the only kernels worth having in either binary or source
> > > are (in release order) 2.0.36, 2.0.17, 2.0.19, 2.4.2. All others are
>
> > You don't like *any* of the 2.2 series?
>
> it looks like a typo to me
>
> 2.
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Nate Duehr wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:37:33PM +0200, Bernd Hentig wrote:
> > AFAIK, the only kernels worth having in either binary or source
> > are (in release order) 2.0.36, 2.0.17, 2.0.19, 2.4.2. All others are
> You don't like *any* of the 2.2 series?
it looks
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 11:15:03AM +1000, jason andrade wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Nate Duehr wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:37:33PM +0200, Bernd Hentig wrote:
> > > AFAIK, the only kernels worth having in either binary or source
> > > are (in release order) 2.0.36, 2.0.17, 2.0.19, 2.
Previously Nate Duehr wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:37:33PM +0200, Bernd Hentig wrote:
> > AFAIK, the only kernels worth having in either binary or source
> > are (in release order) 2.0.36, 2.0.17, 2.0.19, 2.4.2.
>
> You don't like *any* of the 2.2 series?
Considering he said `in release
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:37:33PM +0200, Bernd Hentig wrote:
> AFAIK, the only kernels worth having in either binary or source
> are (in release order) 2.0.36, 2.0.17, 2.0.19, 2.4.2. All others are
> either junk and pretty unstable or useless (at least IMHO).
> So, I've never really seen any use
> Sorry for having been this silent. In the past few days I've spent many hours
> on getting debian-cd ready for 2.2 rev3 (issues you mentioned, updated/
> redesigned README (matching www.d.o but actually better code) and the
> long-promised "make-a-useful-CD1" project which involved lots of test
"J.A. Bezemer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry for having been this silent. In the past few days I've spent
> many hours on getting debian-cd ready for 2.2 rev3 (issues you
> mentioned, updated/ redesigned README (matching www.d.o but actually
> better code) and the long-promised "make-a-usef
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 12:08:17AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
>On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 03:00:41PM +0100, lance wrote:
>
>> If it turns out that the changes take up more than a CD then maybe it
>> shouldnt be a point release after all ??
>
>I doubt the changes run to anything like a CD full. Ho
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 01:45:50PM +0100, lance wrote:
>
>The other alternative would be to produce an update cd that contained the
>updates from 2.2r2 to 2.2r3 - especially if the update cd could be the cd
>to install from :)
>
>All I am asking for is enough time to make a reasonable effort at ma
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 01:45:50PM +0100, lance wrote:
> The other alternative would be to produce an update cd that contained the
> updates from 2.2r2 to 2.2r3 - especially if the update cd could be the cd
> to install from :)
That's not a bad idea, really. A minimal CD#1 that includes all the
c
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 01:50:36PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Le Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:16:11AM +0200, Martin Schulze écrivait:
> > > Also - is there any chance that .iso images or pseudo image
> > > configurations could be ready _before_ the release is announced - eg
> > > tonight cdimage.d
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Le Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:16:11AM +0200, Martin Schulze écrivait:
> > > Also - is there any chance that .iso images or pseudo image
> > > configurations could be ready _before_ the release is announced - eg
> > > tonight cdimage.debian.org still has
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Le Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:16:11AM +0200, Martin Schulze écrivait:
> > > Also - is there any chance that .iso images or pseudo image
> > > configurations could be ready _before_ the release is announced - eg
> > > tonight cdimage.debian.org still has no idea about 2.2r3 -
Le Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:16:11AM +0200, Martin Schulze écrivait:
> > Also - is there any chance that .iso images or pseudo image
> > configurations could be ready _before_ the release is announced - eg
> > tonight cdimage.debian.org still has no idea about 2.2r3 - shouldnt .isos
> > be part of t
14 matches
Mail list logo
