| 1 |
On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 17:37, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 2 |
> > ...and how would you run a machine with both if one were masked by the |
| 3 |
> > profile? A user should not be required to change profiles to change |
| 4 |
> > kernels. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Well, the "higher" or 2.6 profile would allow both. If the change is "no |
| 7 |
> problem" enough then a new profile would not be necessary, but at least for |
| 8 |
> x86 the 2.6 kernel is still a bit experimental. Normal users should not be |
| 9 |
> automatically updated. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
That makes sense as far as the profiles are concerned. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I do disagree on the "normal users should not be automatically upgraded" |
| 14 |
for two reasons. One is that Linus, et al. consider the kernel to be |
| 15 |
the "stable" kernel. The second is that we don't force anyone to |
| 16 |
upgrade their kernel. It is still a manual process. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
That being said, I'm more than willing to go with a specific profile, |
| 19 |
and was actually planning on implementing one for 2004.3 as a separate |
| 20 |
stacked profile. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 24 |
Release Engineering - Operations/QA Manager |
| 25 |
Games - Developer |
| 26 |
Gentoo Linux |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Is your power animal a penguin? |
Archives