Re: dpkg and custom kernels ( was: report of upgrade bo -> hamm )
On 23 Oct 1997, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think that people crafting a custom kernel should at least
> read the README file, and the epoch problem is not enough to make me
> change the default. I think I'm of the old school, and I think people
> should learn to use their tools (including UNIX). I will reconsider
> if there is public uproar about this.
While I agree with you on that, I think that there is a different issue
here. Epochs _are_ being used, like it or not ( irrespective however right
you may be or however I might agree or not. )
In effect that means that otherwise fine tools have become slightly broken
because of the use of epochs. Because fighting the epochs in this direct
manner is IMHO not very opportune, I think that using epochs as a default
is a pragmatic way of at least getting the system as a whole unbroken in a
practical sense.
If you would still maintain that this is bad practice, then that comes
IMO from the use of epochs in general, not from the use in kernel-package.
In this case direct resistance IMHO only worsens the netto problem. Users
should not be the victim of political issues and the battles over the use
of epochs is to be fought in an arena where the shrapnell doesn't threaten
to hurt the public.
However, if the general opinion ( I can't say that I've heard many voices
yet though ) is that epochs should be an option-only feature then I will
rest my case.
Cheers,
Joost
--
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 .
Reply to: