| 1 |
On Sunday, 31 December 2017 00:33:34 GMT Peter Humphrey wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Saturday, 30 December 2017 00:18:12 GMT Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 3 |
> > If you want to fix the bugs, then by all means soldier on. But if your |
| 4 |
> > intent is to have a working system that boots, probably drop using |
| 5 |
> > 4.14.x and go back to say 4.12.x ? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> But the whole 4.12 branch has been masked, so that won't do. Here, I've |
| 8 |
> had to go back to 4.9.49-r1 (amd64, not ~amd64). But now I see 4.9.72 has |
| 9 |
> been stabilised. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Oops! That's on an x86 box. On this amd64 box the latest version is still |
| 12 |
4.9.49-r1. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> I think I'll wait for some stabiliity in the kernel |
| 15 |
> version offerings before I make another move. Three kernel compilations |
| 16 |
> on six systems within a week are a few too many. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
Regards, |
| 20 |
Peter. |
Archives