Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree
OK, I have no problem with taking my packages that depend on a development
kernel, i.e. 2.1.x, out of Hamm and place them in unstable. However,
somebody with the requiered authority must make it official and all other
maintainers in the same situtation must do the same thing with their packages.
Of course, consensus must be reached first, I think.
At 06:29 PM 4/2/98 -0500, Brian White wrote:
>> Maybe our Release Manager (Brian C. White) has something to say about
>> this. Brian?
>Okay... I've read over the thread and this is my feelings on it:
>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".
>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.
Eloy A. Paris
Information Technology Department
Rockwell Automation de Venezuela
Telephone: +58-2-9432311 Fax: +58-2-9431645 Cel.: +58-16-234700
"Where does this path lead?" said Alice
"Depends on where you want to go." Said the cat
("Alice in Wonderland", by Lewis Carroll.)
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org