Re: Release of 2.4.21

[David Lang]

if official kernels were being released more rapidly then they are it
wouldn't be much of a problem (I can wait a week or two for this with no
problem) but it's currently several months between releases, and since
there are so many changes there is the potential that a new kernel could
be worse then what you are running.

yes I could download a patch and fix the kernel that way, but while I
understand how simple that is I can already hear the crys from management
about haphazardly patching things that then get put into production.

and as for the vendor kernels, I don't use them becouse they all make a
ton of changes that I don't want to deal with.

the stable kernel releases are a vendor for this situation and this
'vendor' has chosen to consider this bug not critical (along with a couple
others) which is a decision being questioned by folks.

David Lang

 On 21 Mar 2003, Alan Cox wrote:

> Date: 21 Mar 2003 01:01:34 +0000
> From: Alan Cox <[e-mail]>
> To: Adrian Knoth <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: Release of 2.4.21
>
> On Thu, 2003-03-20 at 19:56, Adrian Knoth wrote:
> > (and glibc as well) to do the same. You cannot call 2.4.20 a stable kernel
> > with such a bug, so as a leader of the 2.4.x-series you cannot call the
> > whole branch "stable".
> >
> > World needs to update, best way to enforce is by a new release.
>
> The vendors have released updated kernels. Whats the problem ?
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [e-mail]
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>