On Thu, Apr 02, 1998 at 06:29:30PM -0500, Brian White wrote:
> CD distributions are most useful to the novice unix user (if that isn't
> a contradiction in terms). Thus, the "stable" distribution should be
> targetted primarily for that user group. More advanced users may use
> the CD as a base, but are equally comfortable in pulling packages off
> of the FTP site.
>
> In this case, if somebody has the knowledge to build their own 2.1 kernel
> (since one didn't come on the CD), then they have the knowledge necessary
> to get packages from "unstable".
That's true but it needs extra interaction and extra net.access etc.
I'd like the packages being included and a preinst containing a test
such as
kver=`uname -r`
if `dpkg --compare-versions $kver lt 2.1.0`; then
echo "You're not using a 2.1.x kernel. This package is not designed"
echo "to work with it."
echo -n "Press Enter to continue... "; read ans
exit 1
fi
Otherwise I'm sure we get complaints saying "Debian doesn't support 2.1.x
kernels", Ugh.
> So, I feel that packages requiring the 2.1 kernel should not be in "frozen"
> or "stable". Please feel free to comment on this. It's not a ruling yet.
I disagree. But I admit that such packages should have the lowest package
priority.
Btw. what packages are we talking about anyway?
some smbfs package and raidtools come to my mind.
Regards,
Joey
--
/ Martin Schulze * joey@infodrom.north.de * 26129 Oldenburg /
/ http://home.pages.de/~joey/
/ Never trust an operating system you don't have source for! /
Attachment:
pgpbESxeDsewm.pgp
Description: PGP signature