Re: non-debian kernels -- bizzar?

[Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com>]

Hi,

	I think I am leaning towards asking a question (I don't know
 how to make it flash portably ;-), give dire warning about hosing the
 system, being unable to boot the system, and, even if a backup kernel
 of the same version is available, tell them they will loose all
 modules and hence maybe unable to mount the file systems if they are
 modules. 

	The way I see the debate so far:
 3 personal preference against the kernel-package (irrelevant n a
   technical discussion, IMHO). The people who do not like the
   kernl-package then usually proceed to detail how asy ot os to foil
   the kernel-package, kind of arguing this is a non-issue ;-)
 2 personal preference for the kernel-package (thank you, but again,
   not germane to the issue [much appreciated, though])
 5 opined to ask the question and remove the kernel (did not adress
   the modules question)
 1 opined to ask the question and remove the kernel, warning about the
   modules.
 1 opining that the defaults are good, and help novices
 

	The arguments that swayed me were philosophical, I was gently
 reminded that we are not, after all, nusemaids, and rm -rf / is
 likely to do more damage. 

	I still think that it is dangerous to remove a kernel image
 that is the same version as a running kernel if *any* modules are
 being used, but hey, if kernel hackers wanna ruin their system, who
 am I to object? 

	I'll put is a suitable warning in the next prerm script
 (policy does not say anything prohibiting prerm from being
 interactive)

	manoj
-- 
Manoj Srivastava               <url:mailto:srivasta@acm.org>
Mobile, Alabama USA            <url:http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .