AF:
NF:0
PS:10
SRH:1
SFN:
DSR:
MID:
CFG:
PT:0
S:andy.sharp@lsi.com
RQ:
SSV:mhbs.lsil.com
NSV:
SSH:
R:<Chuck.Nichols@lsi.com>
MAID:2
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
RMID:#imap/LSI/INBOX	0	F468E78762250B478EB5BE2BB2AA2C9E0971A5@cosmail01.lsi.com
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 14:13:20 -0700
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@lsi.com>
To: "Nichols, Chuck" <Chuck.Nichols@lsi.com>
Subject: Re: Per our phone call...
Message-ID: <20091008141320.1f9cb6c0@ripper.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <F468E78762250B478EB5BE2BB2AA2C9E0971A5@cosmail01.lsi.com>
References: <F468E78762250B478EB5BE2BB2AA2C9E0971A5@cosmail01.lsi.com>
Organization: LSI
X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.8.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 15:08:27 -0600 "Nichols, Chuck"
<Chuck.Nichols@lsi.com> wrote:

> Just to make sure I got the wording right, you're suggesting we tell
> Citrix we require a "Debian stable Linux distribution with the latest
> stable kernel".

Debian 'stable' (it's a release alias) userland.

kernel.org 2.6.31 plus whatever xen-stable patches.  Bruce would be a
more reliable authority on this one.

> In Linux-land, is it valid to also make a statement of a minimum
> required kernel revision along with the wording above?  As in, add a
> statement like "(minimum 2.6.31)" to the verbiage?
> 
> Thanks again,
> Chuck
> 
