Re: Can't build 2.2.17 kernel

[Chris Kloiber <ckloiber rochester rr com>]

Joe Klemmer wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Harold Oga wrote:
> 
> >    After re-reading your message (and a couple of cups of coffee :)),
> > it became more obvious to me.  Sorry about that.
> 
>         It would have been better if I'd used more discretion in my
> quoting.
> 
> > As far as 2.2.18pre series, I find it is reasonably stable for me, but
> > stability will depend on usage.  For instance, I don't use nfs, and my
> > system rarely sees extreme loads, so under those conditions I can't
> > say how stable it is.  Best guess, it should be better than 2.2.17,
> > but you will have to test it out for your particular situation.
> 
>         I've been pretty conservative with kernel's over the last couple
> of years.  (Not like the good ol' days of compiling patches the moment
> they got posted)  I'm still on 2.2.16 but a lot of the 2.4 back-ports
> coming into the 2.2.18 series look very useful.

Looking at some of the latest 2.2.18pre kernels, they are much closer in
functionality to the heavily modified RH 7.0 kernel than 2.2.17 is. I am
using 2.2.18pre13 right now without problems. Of course I don't really
stress test it except for kernel compiles and an occasional game of
Quake III.

Chris Kloiber
-- 
printk("Uhhuh. NMI received. Dazed and confused, but trying to
continue\n");