Re: Care to comment on plan for module building?

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 09:21:55AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 15:08:30 +0100, Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> said: 
> 
> > On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 02:29:52PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
> >> 
> >> Hi Eduard (and cc kernel list),
> >> 
> >> I have put together a draft for future kernel module handling,
> >> based on a discussion at the kernel list and spiced up with a few
> >> thoughts of my own. It is available here:
> >> http://wiki.debian.org/KernelModulesPackaging
> >> 
> >> Could you please have a look and tell me what you think (or perhaps
> >> simply edit that wiki page directly)?
> 
> > Notice that you again sided with Manoj, depite him never providing
> > any arguments in favour of not using the standard upstream mandated
> > build symlink,
> 
>         his is a mnischaracterization of my position, but then, I have
>  come to expect that.
> 
>         The upstream convention of using 
>  /lib/modules/$(uname -r)/build 
>  is supported, has been supported, and shall be supported by
>  kernel-package in the future.

Indeed, and that is the real problem here, *YOU* decide unilaterally how the
kernel infrastructure shoud look, and disregard any discussion with the kernel
team. I still don't get why Jonas so suddenly took of with you and told me to
go fuck myself, but i still fail to see any kind of argument in what you
mentioned above.

> > and since both of you prefered resulting to insults instead of
> > reasoned argumentations, i want to have no plan with any such plans
> > as you have, so go ahead, and break everything for all i care.
> 
>         Packages built using kernel-package coherently are not
>  broken. Just more FUD and slander.

Yeah, i will let the rest of the kernel team judge how unbroken the
kernel-package stuff is right now, but then we mostly override most of it
anyway.

Sven Luther