From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev-return-5042-arch-gentoo-dev=gentoo.org@gentoo.org>
Received: (qmail 28201 invoked by uid 1002); 26 Jul 2003 13:40:20 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev-unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev-subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Received: (qmail 16544 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2003 13:40:20 -0000
From: Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org>
To: "C. Brewer" <cbrewer@stealthaccess.net>
Cc: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
In-Reply-To: <005701c35356$ab632440$2767f842@stan>
References: <20030725115209.2ff7b1f6.cbrewer@stealthaccess.net>
	 <200307251844.03636.vapier@gentoo.org>
	 <005701c35356$ab632440$2767f842@stan>
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <1059226798.24874.16.camel@vertigo>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.3 
Date: 26 Jul 2003 09:39:58 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev]  RE:Boot floppies
X-Archives-Salt: fd1a3980-4442-4643-8eb7-94b5895a185e
X-Archives-Hash: 59e2fd71ed86135dac48f513c4dc440a

On Sat, 2003-07-26 at 05:16, C. Brewer wrote:

> So if this was the case, why a 2.6 kernel? You could do it with a 2.2 or 2.4
> oldschool style,

Hardware support.  Though I think one could get away easily with a 2.4
kernel.  I see no reason creating an "official" bootdisk with a beta
kernel.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Developer, Gentoo Linux


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list