Re: What is a Kernel?

[Colin Mattson <colol@ionet.net>]

On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 08:41:36PM +0300, Moshe Zadka wrote:
> I was horrified to find out that the kernel is "Required". The official
> reason is "well, people compile kernels themselves". Well, people might

It seems like this shouldn't be the way to solve the problem... I can
understand it from one point of view, but from another it makes little
to no sense.  From a stock install, yes, you need a kernel -- and an easy
way to do that is make a kernel package that is required.  In theory, though,
it seems like it would get in the way (though I have not yet ever encountered
_my_ kernel being replaced in a dist-upgrade...).
To me, at least, it would make more sense to just have the installer slap
a kernel on the system if you're installing anew (not sure if that would
violate any Debian philosophy).

> What we need is some /etc/alternatives-like interface to kernels, and
> have people installing kernels from .debs. They can still compile
> themselves -- apt-get source, make config, make debian package and
> install.
As someone already pointed out, that facility does exist already.
But for simplicity's sake, it's almost pointless.  It's faster (and simpler)
to just do a make config/deps/bzlilo than it is to config and then build a deb
out of it.  Offering the ability to do You-Do-It Debified Kernels is nice,
but the second we force people to do that, it's a problem.  ("If it ain't broke,
don't fix it" -- you can compile kernels without packaging them now, so I
don't see a real reason to do it any other way)

--
Colin Mattson
colol@ionet.net