Re: 2.4 vs. 2.2

[Michel <mic...@ii...>]

Frank Rudolf Georg Petzold wrote:

> > I perfectly understand users who stick to 2.2 for now when they have =
found
> > out that 2.4 doesn't meet their needs yet.
>=20
> Only that there is the shared memory problem that prevents burning CDs =
in
> 2.2.

Yes, that's just one of the reasons why all users really want 2.4 . Most =
of
them just don't know yet. ;)


> - Internal parallel does not work (garbage arrives at printer)

Robert says it kind of works, can you two work that out please?


> > That's why I think putting stuff like this in 2.2 is a bad idea.
>=20
> Backports are OK, perhaps even mandatory though.

Maybe, but this topic didn't start from a backport but from new developme=
nt
done in the 2.2 tree. Bug fixes are important, backports should be option=
al
and low priority. After all, each backport keeps more users from upgradin=
g.


PS: Can you please submit bugs for the problems you experience? Thanks.

--=20
Earthling Michel D=E4nzer (MrCooper)    \   Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) de=
veloper
CS student, Free Software enthusiast   \        XFree86 and DRI project m=
ember