Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree
On Thu, 9 Apr 1998, Brian White wrote:
> > What if THEY GOT IT OFF A CD, NOT THE NET? Yes, there are people that are
> > going to buy CD distributions that include kernel sources, and these
> > distributions will include 2.1.x and 2.2 when it's released. WHAT DO WE
> > LOSE by putting support for them in hamm?
> I think that if somebody can get the 2.2 kernel source off of CD, build
> the kernel (hopefully as a debian package) and install it, they have the
> knowledge and the ability to download packages from the network using
> one of the many possibilities of dpkg, dselect, dftp, or another.
You're still missing the point. IT IS POSSIBLE TO INSTALL LINUX OFF CD
WHEN YOU HAVE NO POSSIBLE NET ACCESS!!!!!!!!
> What we lose is including packages that break either during installation or
> when run on a stock Hamm system. Since we are shipping a "hamm" CD, I
> believe that that CD should be as problem free as possible. If people
> start mixing things from different CDs, they have to realize things may
> not work "out of the box".
Sure, then why not remove everything that supports obscure external
hardware? People who have quickcams "obviously" can get their support off
the net too. This is about making hamm useful to as many people as
possible. If we label smbfsx and ncpfsx with "you need a 2.1.x series
kernel to use this, else use <package> instead", we cater for both
Scott K. Ellis <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://www.gate.net/~storm/
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org