sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
Re: [SM-Discuss] thoughts about default kernel branch (moving to 2.6.x somewhen)
- From: Treeve Jelbert <treeve01 AT pi.be>
- To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] thoughts about default kernel branch (moving to 2.6.x somewhen)
- Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 21:35:43 +0100
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 18 February 2004 18:30, Wolfgang Scheicher wrote:
> As far as i can tell there are less and less problems with 2.6.x kernels.
> I myself switched my work system to 2.6.x when 2.6.2 got released, and with
> my new glibc i burned the bridges behind me.
>
> So when shall we use 2.6.x as default for the linux spell and the iso?
>
> We shouldn't do it to early, but propably shouldn't wait too long either.
>
> I for myself belive that things work well enough to switch test grimoire to
> 2.6.x kernels soon (within the next weeks). And stable somewhen later when
> it's save. This doesn't mean that users have to upgrade, it's more about
> what shall be default. However, a user should not run into too much
> troubles when using the default :-)
>
> So - Which kernels are you running, and which problems did you run into
> because of your kernel?
I switched to 2.6.3-rc2 a couple of weeks ago and everything is going fine.
I've just built 2.6.3
>
> Worf
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss
Regards, Treeve
- --
PGP Key ID: AB929B24
PGP Key Fingerprint:31D9 D22F 42E6 F545 662E AB6F 9697 34C5 AB92 9B24
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAM8yflpc0xauSmyQRAlL/AKCjphbY+cIogU/otiWrSCPHPkMtsgCgh1W1
+5Ou7xwdu7RBAsLzPgmwuIA=
=Ka86
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-
[SM-Discuss] thoughts about default kernel branch (moving to 2.6.x somewhen),
Wolfgang Scheicher, 02/18/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] thoughts about default kernel branch (moving to 2.6.x somewhen),
Paul, 02/18/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] thoughts about default kernel branch (moving to 2.6.x somewhen), Jose Bernardo Silva, 02/18/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] thoughts about default kernel branch (moving to 2.6.x somewhen), David C. Haley, 02/18/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] thoughts about default kernel branch (moving to 2.6.x somewhen),
Eric Sandall, 02/18/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] thoughts about default kernel branch (moving to 2.6.x somewhen),
David C. Haley, 02/18/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] thoughts about default kernel branch (moving to 2.6.x somewhen),
Arwed von Merkatz, 02/18/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] thoughts about default kernel branch (moving to 2.6.x somewhen), David C. Haley, 02/18/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] thoughts about default kernel branch (moving to 2.6.x somewhen),
Arwed von Merkatz, 02/18/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] thoughts about default kernel branch (moving to 2.6.x somewhen),
David C. Haley, 02/18/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] thoughts about default kernel branch (moving to 2.6.x somewhen), Treeve Jelbert, 02/18/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] thoughts about default kernel branch (moving to 2.6.x somewhen), Robin Sheat, 02/18/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] thoughts about default kernel branch (moving to 2.6.x somewhen), Chris Dombroski, 02/18/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] thoughts about default kernel branch (moving to 2.6.x somewhen),
Robin Cook, 02/18/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] thoughts about default kernel branch (moving to 2.6.x somewhen), Arwed von Merkatz, 02/18/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] thoughts about default kernel branch (moving to 2.6.x somewhen),
Paul, 02/18/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.