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
Out of curiosity what's preventing us from using 3.x. naming of kernels
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
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 )?
kernel mailing list