lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1996]   [Jun]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:37    [W:0.124 / U:0.368 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site