On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 03:26:10PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Rather, I think it would mean people would be upset about 2.4 being dropped
> with little official notice -- but yes, this should be announced sooner
> rather than later.
The announcement of the obscolecence of the 2.4 kernels by th
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 11:20:38PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Thursday 13 April 2006 22:59, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I think etch should support 2.4 in the sense of "upgrade support only";
> > i.e., it should support 2.4 because we need to be able to install etch
> > on systems running sarge 2.4
On Thursday 13 April 2006 22:59, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I think etch should support 2.4 in the sense of "upgrade support only";
> i.e., it should support 2.4 because we need to be able to install etch
> on systems running sarge 2.4 kernels, not because we'll provide support
> for 2.4 in etch.
Wha
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 09:52:42PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Joey Hess:
> > - Debian's userland has *always* supported at least the previous major
> >kernel version, and most often the previous two, or sometimes I
> >think, three major kernel versions.
> This isn't a real argument
4 matches
Mail list logo
