Re: [non-i386 people needed] Proposed packages for 2.1r4

1999-11-25 Thread Wichert Akkerman
Previously J.A. Bezemer wrote: > Of course, updates. But are those updates fixing bugs? Critical bugs? Security > bugs? Or are they only adding features? IMHO&AFAIK: some, very few, none, and > most, respectively. some, few, some. Wichert. --

Re: 2.1r4 package list errata.

1999-11-25 Thread Wichert Akkerman
Previously Vincent Renardias wrote: > 2 packages where missing in the list I posted yesterday: More missing stuff: roxen and pike for m68k and sparc. Wichert. -- / Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience

Re: [non-i386 people needed] Proposed packages for 2.1r4

1999-11-25 Thread J.A. Bezemer
On Thu, 25 Nov 1999, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Joel Klecker wrote: > > Strongly disagree, 2.2.5 has a lot of bugs, some of them security related. > > The same can be said for 2.2.13 btw. I don't follow kernel development, but 2.2.13 has been out since 20 Oct, and >1 month without upd

Re: [non-i386 people needed] Proposed packages for 2.1r4

1999-11-25 Thread Herbert Xu
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Previously J.A. Bezemer wrote: >> I don't follow kernel development, but 2.2.13 has been out since 20 Oct, = > and >> >1 month without update (or errata on www.linux.org.uk) is really long fo= > r any >> stable kernel. So I think "a lot of bugs" in 2.2.

Re: [non-i386 people needed] Proposed packages for 2.1r4

1999-11-25 Thread J.A. Bezemer
On Thu, 25 Nov 1999, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously J.A. Bezemer wrote: > > I don't follow kernel development, but 2.2.13 has been out since 20 Oct, and > > >1 month without update (or errata on www.linux.org.uk) is really long for > > >any > > stable kernel. So I think "a lot of bugs" in

Re: [non-i386 people needed] Proposed packages for 2.1r4

1999-11-25 Thread Wichert Akkerman
Previously J.A. Bezemer wrote: > I don't follow kernel development, but 2.2.13 has been out since 20 Oct, and > >1 month without update (or errata on www.linux.org.uk) is really long for any > stable kernel. So I think "a lot of bugs" in 2.2.13 is a little overstated. > Correct me if I'm wrong... >

Re: [non-i386 people needed] Proposed packages for 2.1r4

1999-11-25 Thread Wichert Akkerman
Previously Joel Klecker wrote: > Strongly disagree, 2.2.5 has a lot of bugs, some of them security related. The same can be said for 2.2.13 btw. Wichert. -- / Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \ |

Re: [non-i386 people needed] Proposed packages for 2.1r4

1999-11-25 Thread J.A. Bezemer
On Thu, 25 Nov 1999, Joel Klecker wrote: > At 16:11 + 1999-11-24, Vincent Renardias wrote: > > [*] kernel-source-2.2.5_2.2.5-2_i386.changes > > - needed for SMP machines, fixes lots of bugs, source-only package. > > [OK] > > Strongly disagree, 2.2.5 has a lot of bugs, some of them securi

Re: [non-i386 people needed] Proposed packages for 2.1r4

1999-11-25 Thread Joel Klecker
At 16:11 + 1999-11-24, Vincent Renardias wrote: > [*] kernel-source-2.2.5_2.2.5-2_i386.changes > - needed for SMP machines, fixes lots of bugs, source-only package. > [OK] Strongly disagree, 2.2.5 has a lot of bugs, some of them security related. -- Joel Klecker (aka Espy)

2.1r4 package list errata.

1999-11-25 Thread Vincent Renardias
2 packages where missing in the list I posted yesterday: --- [*] smartlist_3.13-2 - y2k fix. [MISSING: alpha] [*] gnats_3.113-0slink1 - y2k fix [MISSING: alpha, sparc, m68k] --- Cordialement, -- - Vincent RENARDIAS [EMAIL PROTECTED],pipo}.com,{debian,openhardware}.

Re: [non-i386 people needed] Proposed packages for 2.1r4

1999-11-25 Thread Santiago Vila
On Wed, 24 Nov 1999, Vincent Renardias wrote: > Are here the packages I expect to add in 2.1r4 (comments? questions?). > [...] > > -- and from www.debian.org/~vincent/dists/y2k-update: > > [*] cvs_1.10.7-1.99.slink.y2k.0_i386.changes > [*] elm-me+_2.4pl25ME+65-0.slink.0_i386.changes > [*] ens