[Fwd: Re: [Th] Upgrade apport - jak rozumieć ten błąd?]

[Tomasz Mateja]

Elan Ruusamäe pisze:
> On Wednesday 09 April 2008 21:25, Tomasz Mateja wrote:
>>> and instead of living out your feelings, report bugs what is wrong with
>>> 2.6.22 kernel (in lists or http://bugs.pld-linux.org/). 2.6.16 is at
>>> least three years old kernel. upstream is near 2.6.25 already. and th/ti
>>> do have 2.6.22 kernel, do you shout there too?
>> So what?
>> Why not upgrade glibc in ac to 2.7? and XFree to xorg - they are also
>> very old. This is STABLE so minor updates or security updates are
>> welcome. bugs.pld-... is not the place for this request.
> 
> glibc = would break 2.4 kernel compatability (afaik already glibc 2.4 required 
> 2.6.0 kernel), that has been accidentally already broken several times. 
> intentionally broking it would be evil.
> 
> xorg 7.0 = too much to rebuild with so less gain, and so far there's no binary 
> incompatibility that i've encountered using X11 (aka xorg 6.9).
> 
> and kernel update is needed to let ac live a little longer. as there's need to 
> support newer hardware. it was considered dead already time it was released. 
> and some major changes like updating glibc or gcc would mean changing the 
> distro, i.e dropping some architectures and 2.4 kernel compatability.
> 
What are the super-hiper features with new release of kernel??
Remeber - no xorg - no compiz - no fun - kernel upgrade wont help
Old glibc - new kernel - compatibility emulated - what new features?
upgrade kernel for desktops in AC - useless
upgrade kernel for servers - more useless

-- 
T.