Re: Paranoia, "pristine sources", turnkeys, compiling, configuration

[Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org>]

On Thu, Dec 18, 1997 at 07:28:08PM +1000, adavis@netpci.com wrote:
> feedback to help me understand, for example, the muddle in which I remain
> until this day about Debian's adamant adherence to some kind of non-standard
> policy of setting up headers (ie., not as established by Linus).  I have had
> LOTS of trouble compiling linux 2.1.X kernels---in fact I have, in the past
> year and a half, only been able to successfully compile 2.1.66 and have it
> do the modest things I ask of it (ppp and printing) properly.  I am really
> confused.

No no, Linus agrees with our method. If you do really
have problems compiling 2.1, then you must have
a very old make-kpkg if you are using it; if you're not using
it, you must be doing something wrong. The kernel sources
are well aware that /usr/include/linux is not necessarily
the include files in the kernel source and does not use them,
and has not for months.

> This suggests to me that at least part of what the Debian developers are
> doing is somehow redundant, when it comes to well written software that is
> set up to compile of a number of systems.  I did not claim that there are

Certainly, we're providing precompiled binaries for programs
that in a lot of cases are straight forward to install. However,
there are other advantages; in particular, uninstalling software
installed from source requires you to find each and every file
installed by "make install", which is hazardous at best.
Debian has absolute package removal, of the sort Bill Gates
could only dream. Also, some people don't want to compile
from sources -- especially on slow machines or ones
with low disk space, compilation is troublesome,
especially for big software. And some people don't know
enough to compile the software.

> I have become an addict of the Debian system.  That scares me.  It scares me
> the more, noticing that some packages seem to have been set up according to
> whim of the developer.  

But if these packages don't let you override their
configuration with your defaults, then file a bug report! In fact,
if a package provides a configuration other than the upstream
default for reasons which are not entirely Debian integration issues,
you could probably file a bug report for that too.

> Oh, yeah, and may I ask, while I'm at it, whether straight linux
> compiles (of 2.1.X kernels) should be expected to go ok on Debian boxes, or
> does one have to add another layer of wrappers, etc.?  Can you convice me

No need. make-kpkg is a nice tool which can built you a .deb of
a kernel & install it properly, but you don't have to use it.

> it's necessary?  (I am truly dense; I have remained in a fog for YEARS over
> this issue).  I'd like to resolve this issue, as I have to set up a PS/2
> Model 50 (MCA and SCSI) as the first step in the estblishment of a gateway

Isn't the model 50 a 286, ie not Linuxable?

hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt, hamish@debian.org, hamish@rising.com.au, hmoffatt@mail.com
Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5
CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome.   http://hamish.home.ml.org


--
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 .