2011/8/23 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg(a)gmail.com>:
On 08/23/2011 01:28 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Genes MailLists<lists(a)sapience.com> wrote:
>> Dave - any chance you'd put together an F15 2.6.41 based on 3.1?
> I don't think we're going to move F15 to 3.1 until it has some vetting
> on F16/rawhide first. Particularly when it's only in -rc3 at the
> moment.
Out of curiosity what's preventing us from using 3.x. naming of kernels
on F15?
I asked the same question some time ago
W dniu 30 czerwca 2011 20:58 użytkownik Dave Jones <davej(a)redhat.com> napisał:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 08:50:17PM +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> I ask out of curiosity - why 2.6.40? Is it a big problem to run 3.0 on F15?
A lot of broken software is assuming version numbers are 2.6.x. We could push a load
of userspace packages to fix it, but that's just the stuff we control. 3rd party
add-ons
would break for no good reason.
This deviates from what upstream calls it, but it's just a number, and not breaking
existing code in an update is more important here. For f16 of course, we'll make
the 3.0 transition, because moving to a new release has differing expectations,
and by the time it ships, hopefully everything that cares will be fixed.
Or to rephrase it if I install 3.x kernels from koji on an F15 host what
breaks ( or is expected to break )?
JBG
_______________________________________________
kernel mailing list
kernel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
--
Best regards,
Michal
http://eventhorizon.pl/