Re: dpkg and custom kernels ( was: report of upgrade bo -> hamm )
I think that I have documented the epoch snafu all over the
place in kernel-package files. I'll add to the warnings, I think, to
make sure things are evident to people. I'll even modify the conf
file to update the commented suggested revision number.
I personally am not going to use epochs for my personal use,
trusting that the use of epochs was an anomaly that would be quite
uncommon. I personally think that epochs are a necessary evil, but use
of epochs means you can't tell how packages would be ordered by
visual inspection of the file name; I do not wish to encourage
widespread use of epochs.
Kernel-package has never imposed a debian-revision with the
recommended format on people (despite the recommendation for a two
level Custom.1 kind of debian revision, the default has been 1.00). I
see no reason to change this ;-)
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.
who is slightly nauseated by the I-am-a-dummy,-please-spoon-feed-me
syndrome, and is feeling ornery
"The only thing open about OSF is their mouth." Chuck Musciano
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
firstname.lastname@example.org . Trouble?
e-mail to email@example.com .