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 o
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 i
> 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-usefu
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
5 matches
Mail list logo
