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

Re: dpkg and custom kernels ( was: report of upgrade bo -> hamm )

On 22 Oct 1997, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

> Hi,
> >>"Joey" == Joey Hess <joey@kite.ml.org> writes:
> Joey> Isn't kernel-package used to build the debian kernal image
> Joey> packages? I don't think making epochs default is a good idea.

Then the maintainer of the default distribution kernels and sources can
set his default revision without an epoch. The original suggestion
already involved that he would be the only one to need a non-standard
/etc/kernel-pkg.conf. So _he_ sets no epoch instead of a lower than
default. Everybody else gets given an epoch by default by kernel-package.

Epochs are an accepted part of the policy and IMHO they are really useful
here. I'll try to give some more detailed arguments that focus on the
situation of a user who rolls his own kernel-images with kernel-package:

Someone who makes his own kernel-image or -source does not want his
efforts to be undone "automagically" by dselect. In the current situation,
that is the default behaviour of the system. 

In the event that newer sources are available, he is far more likely to
rebuild a kernel with kernel-package than installing a default kernel from
the distribution. Let alone the fact that he might often have done that
already before a distribution image appears.

The current situation is that you get an unpleasant surprise if you let
dselect upgrade your system and forget to explicitly put kernel-image on
hold ( and how many people can claim to use dselect without taking
occasional hits from its powerful features ;-) . )

The compromise that Manoj suggests still requires you to enable a sensible
default as a feature. That is IMHO only comparable to the situation where
you have to instruct dselect and that is be potentially troublesome
situation. I am actually a great fan of dselect and I don't want the
"real men only use the raw dpkg anyway"-camp another argument.

> 	Oh, I think I'd just go so far as to put a commented out
>  example in /etc/kernel-pkg.conf. Like:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> # This is the debian revision number (defaulted to 1.0 in debian.rules)
> # You may leave it commented out if you use the wrapper script, or
> # if you create just one kernel-image package per linux kernel revision
> # debian := 5:c501
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 	People may just uncomment that if they wish (currently the
>  commented out part is debian := 1.0).

I think _I_ could settle for that, because I know about the feature.  But
still, I think that it is more practical in the general interest to have
kernel-package default to epochs ( 5 is a fine number, though 3 would
probably suffice too - it gives the maintainer of the official packages
enough room to manouver. )

Can this please be taken into consideration again with the new suggestion
for letting the default kernel-images have no epochs ( only that
maintainer then has to tweak his /etc/kernel-pkg.conf . ) 



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: