| 1 |
On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 06:26, Travis Tilley wrote: |
| 2 |
> Peter Gordon wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > Couldn't we just use different ebuild versions? |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > # emerge ">=gentoo-sources-2.6" |
| 7 |
> > # emerge "=gentoo-sources-2.4.27" |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Or something similar? Would that work? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> the functionality needed to have something like that work as expected |
| 13 |
> wont be in portage until maybe 2.0.53. the package has to have a |
| 14 |
> different name for now... the issue is that the name development-sources |
| 15 |
> is misleading. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> perhaps the 2.4 kernel ebuilds should be in legacy-sources? ;) |
| 18 |
> from kernel.org: |
| 19 |
> The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: *2.6.8.1 |
| 20 |
> <http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/patch-2.6.8.1.bz2> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
While I agree that we shouldn't make a linux26-sources, I think that |
| 23 |
making a linux24-sources would not be a problem. The reason for this is |
| 24 |
that the 2.4 version will always be a 2.4 version, whereas the 2.6 |
| 25 |
versions, *are* what kernel.org considers to be "vanilla" sources. Why |
| 26 |
don't we? This was kinda my reason for bringing up a Gentoo-wide switch |
| 27 |
to 2.6 as the "default" kernels in the near (February) future. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 31 |
Release Engineering - Operations/QA Manager |
| 32 |
Games - Developer |
| 33 |
Gentoo Linux |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Is your power animal a penguin? |
Archives