Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 24 Jun 1996 16:34:52 +0000 | From | hab <> | Subject | Re: No Distribution is 2.0.0 Current |
| |
Kevin M Bealer wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Jun 1996, hab wrote: > > > In my opinion no Distribution is Linux 2.0.0 current. > > To me to be 2.0.0 current all free packages must be compiled > > against the Linux 2.0.0 source tree, with the same libc or later than > > the developers use. It must also include the kernel support utilities > > that have been patched to work with 2.0.0 and all support tools need > > to be updated to support all the standard features of 2.0.0. > > > (clip) > > Just for reference, Debian does not necessarily compile against the kernel > anyway. Debian ships libc with it's own version of the kernel headers, from > a "known stable" kernel. If you want the actual kernel headers from the
What are known stable kernels? 1.2.13 was the last one I know about prior to 2.0.0.
> current kernel (only really necessary for programs which are very kernel > dependant, ie userfs), you can make symbolic links, etc and do this. > I totally agree that a stable platform is required. Thus my argument for don't get to quick in calling a system 2.0.0 current. 2.0.0 and its patches will be around for a year or better as a known Stable Kernel. Thus the plea to make it the true base for stable distributions.
> This allows people who use the "development" distribution of Debian to try > out new kernels with less risk of breaking compilation of other programs. > By Debians own policies 2.0.0 should be out for 3 Months before becoming part of a stable release? Or are their unknown exceptions to policies?
> By your definition then, Debian may never be current, even if it was > completely recompiled with 2.0.0 installed. > I don't understand. I advocated finding out from a package developer what version of the package he considered debugged stable with 2.0.0. This should then be compiled against a common base with all other packages. The whole point is to get away from random bugs and incompatabilities caused by ramdom histories. Why should I need multiple versions of libs to keep all programs from one distribution running. I would like a known stable base, so I can easily isolate my tools from my research.
> BTW don't go to debian to argue out this policy, it has already been debated > to death on those lists.
Thanks for the warning. I guess Debian will never be the choice for a serious Computer Professional. > > __kmb203@psu.edu_________________________Debian__1.1___Linux__2.0.0___ > It is difficult to produce a television documentary that is both > incisive and probing when every twelve minutes one is interrupted by > twelve dancing rabbits singing about toilet paper. > -- Rod Serling
If part of your disagreement was my Use of Libc-5.3.12 which I couldn't find in the Development tree of Debian. I guess Debian will never be secure enough for my use as I will not knowingly use an inferior product.
Hubert Bahr
|  |