Camm Maguire wrote:
> I'm a wee bit
> disappointed at this decision, though, as the main reason for keeping
> the older kernels around is to work with old machines with very
> limited resources, i.e. quasi-embedded. Can one get 2.4 and 2.6 into
> tiny enough form to run a 486 with a floppy only?
Greetings, and please excuse my tardy replies -- as you can tell I've
got quite a bit of work right now.
If it has been decided that 2.2 will only be in the archive for m68k,
then I think we can just drop all these patches. I'm a wee bit
disappointed at this decision, though, as the main reason f
* Camm Maguire ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040423 23:40]:
> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I agree on removing the package. So, if no-one disagrees, I'm going to
> > reassign this bug to ftp.d.o next weekend.
> At least some of the functionality in my 4 packages appears to be
> missing fro
Camm Maguire wrote:
> Greetings!
>
> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I agree on removing the package. So, if no-one disagrees, I'm going to
>> reassign this bug to ftp.d.o next weekend.
>>
>
> At least some of the functionality in my 4 packages appears to be
> missing
Camm Maguire wrote:
> In
> short, I have no objection to the removal of the packages unless their
> presence would facilitate an update of the package contents to the
> latest kernel, which I would like to effect, at least in the p3 and
> raid cases.
The security team has requested to trim down th
Greetings!
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> I agree on removing the package. So, if no-one disagrees, I'm going to
> reassign this bug to ftp.d.o next weekend.
>
At least some of the functionality in my 4 packages appears to be
missing from the latest 2.2 kernel. A simple c
6 matches
Mail list logo
