Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:00:26PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> You have not obsoleted any of the kernel patch packages.
It's not my intention to obsolete anything, but whenever I have to add my own
patches they will be in debian/patches directory where people expect them to
be, not in a separate binary.
You're getting out of the point, though. The confusion I explained would still
remain without the "kernel-patch-*" packages.
> Have you perhaps noticed that the kernels from every architecture build
> from different source packages? Why don't you spend a little time
> working out why this is so, what the issues are with trying to do it
> from one package, and why we don't do that already?
I haven't noticed, so thanks for pointing this out. The fix is trivial, btw.
> > Glibc:
> > #215010: Illegal instruction with 2.2 kernel
> >
> > This is not unusual. IIRC, Woody's Glibc wasn't supported by Linux 2.0 (I
> > once tried an upgrade from Slink after the Woody release)
>
> I fail to see how a bug in the 2.2 kernel, triggered by a recent glibc
> update, dictates anything at all. A substantial portion of Debian
> users won't run the kernel we supply anyway, no matter how we choose to
> supply it.
Indeed. And the point is: a small portion will run my package and will be safe
from hitting this sort of bugs.
--
Robert Millan
"[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he
gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work."
-- J.R.R.T, Ainulindale (Silmarillion)
Reply to: