On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Vic Demuzere <vic@demuzere.be> wrote:
On Aug 2, 2011 6:53 PM, "C Anthony Risinger" <anthony@xtfx.me> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:38 PM, C Anthony Risinger <anthony@xtfx.me>
wrote:
... out of curiosity, if the original reason for having a `kernel26` package was to also have a `kernel24` (from what i read -- wasn't around then) how is this handled with the `linux` package? or is this a non-issue?
We no longer support linux 2.4... How would this be an issue?
sorry i wasn't clear -- i meant when the time comes that dual support would be desirable, eg. linux 4.7 or whatever :-)
C Anthony
Why would you do that for the kernel, but not for other packages?
meh whatever :-) i guess i don't really care anyway since i would never run an older one, but i thought there was a technical reason for the split originally ... though that reason is escaping me now (providing said reason even existed and im not just fabricating it). C Anthony