Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree
On Tue, 31 Mar 1998, Scott Ashcroft wrote:
> On Mon 30 Mar, Eloy A. Paris wrote:
> > > Sorry but I disagree. I believe the final 2.0 release will go out with a
> > > 2.0.x kernel not 2.1.x or 2.2.x and so the tree should not contain
> > > packages which rely on a 2.1.x kernel as they are as experimental as
> > > the features in the kernel they rely on.
> > >
> > > I still see this as a bug in the frozen distribution but as I said
> > > I'm not sure the correct way to approach it. If you can think of
> > > a better way I'll take your advice.
> >
> > But there are lots of people using a stable (or even a frozen or
> > unstable) Debian system and running a 2.1.x development kernel. We
> > can't leave them out in the cold.
>
> So they can grab the bits from unstable they need. I still do that when
> I'm running stable boxes but just need a couple of extra bleeding-edge
> packages.
Yes. But the packages themselves aren't unstable, they are just for a
development kernel. There is no reason to leave them behind (by the same
logic, we should be stuck with the 2.0.33 modutils).
> > Before I released my smbfsx and ncpfsx I got tired of seeing messages
> > in debian-user like "I can't use ncpfs or smbfs in my Debian box
> > running a 2.1.x kernel". Then I decided to package the 2.1.x versions.
>
> At the time unstable was hamm and so that's where they went.
> Now hamm is frozen and will be stable and I don't think these packages
> belong anymore. I'd like to see them in unstable (slink) only.
I strongly object. Why make it more difficult for people who want/need to
run a 2.1.x series kernel to do so. As long as equivilant support is
available for the 2.0.x kernels, I see no reason not to include both.
> > I don't see your point: we provide both the stable versions (ncpfs and
> > smbfs) and the unstable or development versions (ncpfsx and smbfsx).
> > If you want a stable system the run a stable kernel and the stable
> > userland utilities. If you want to be on the bleeding edge then run an
> > unstable kernel and the corresponding userland utilities. The
> > important thing is that you get to choose _and_ you are given both
> > stable and unstable options.
>
> But should they both be in the stable release?
Yes.
> > > I do have another machine here running 2.1.x and the smbfsx stuff looks
> > > very stable and the packaging seems fine so I'm not critising your work.
> >
> > No problem, I never thought that you were critising my packages :-)
> >
> > So, I really don't know. I like the approach of having the chance to
> > choose. I would like to see Hamm out without support for the new
> > kernels. What would you recommend?
>
> My policy would be that the 2.0 release only contains packages which are
> stable and work with a stable 2.0.x kernel all other packages are moved
> to unstable where the user can choose if they want them or not by grabing
> them.
Bad idea. Why hinder distribution just because stuff is out there to
support the bleeding edge of kernel development. Multi-CD distributions
often include the 2.1.x series kernel archive, it makes no sense to force
people to look elsewhere for utilites to support it.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: