[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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  <srivasta@acm.org> <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
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . Trouble? 
e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: