On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Vic Demuzere <vic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Aug 2, 2011 6:53 PM, "C Anthony Risinger" <anthony@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Tom Gundersen <teg@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:38 PM, C Anthony Risinger <anthony@xxxxxxx> > 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
