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

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree



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: pgpfRugLsSK6V.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: