> If you really need it straight away, I can give you a kernel source and
> half of the i386 images tomorrow night my time (+1100). And if Randolph,
> Brian are around, we can probably have something ready by Friday. But
> as I said, it may be wise to wait until the weekend to see if there are
>
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 10:41:38PM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> >
> > Is it possible, in the short term, to get a revised 2.2.17 with the
> > fixed package versioning (an epoch or whatever you gotta do)?
>
> Well the old packages were fine as far as vers
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 10:41:38PM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
>
> Is it possible, in the short term, to get a revised 2.2.17 with the
> fixed package versioning (an epoch or whatever you gotta do)?
Well the old packages were fine as far as version monotonicity was
concerned. It was rejected bec
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 04:22:21PM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> >
> > However, I am going to assume this is a transient state of affairs and
> > that we will have 2.2.17 in 2.2r2. It's possible we'll get it
> > together and have 2.2.18-pre but I need to
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 11:26:01AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> epoch. If you switch to a 2.2.18 prepatch, it may be better to call it
> "kernel-image-2.2.17, version 2.2.18preX" so we don't just have the same
> problem again.
It's better to include the pre in the package name, i.e.,
kernel-foo
On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 04:22:21PM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
>
> However, I am going to assume this is a transient state of affairs and
> that we will have 2.2.17 in 2.2r2. It's possible we'll get it
> together and have 2.2.18-pre but I need to work with something now for
> the purposes of buil
On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 04:22:21PM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Herbert, I don't know ifyou were sufficiently informed but due to a
> problem in the version numbering:
> Reason for rejection: "Epoch in version causes too much breakge for
> the clue impaired :-/"
`2.2.17release' is the usual h
Herbert, I don't know ifyou were sufficiently informed but due to a
problem in the version numbering:
Reason for rejection: "Epoch in version causes too much breakge for
the clue impaired :-/"
However, I am going to assume this is a transient state of affairs and
that we will have 2.2.17 in
8 matches
Mail list logo
