Re: kernel headers---FAQ
On Sun 18 Jan 1998, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jan 1998, Avery Pennarun wrote:
>
> If i'm running Slackware, i read the HOWTOs etc as general linux
> documentation and any slackware docs as specific docs for my
> distribution.
>
> If i'm running Redhat, i read the HOWTOs etc as general linux
> documentation and any Redhat docs as specific docs for my distribution.
>
> If i'm running Debian, i read the HOWTOs etc as general linux
> documentation and any Debian docs as specific docs for my distribution.
>
> If i don't do that then i am stupid and have no cause for complaint if i
> screw up my system.
I understand your point, but saying that someone that doesn't read all
the HOWTOs is stupid is a bit over the top. I'd feel pretty stupid if I
waste my time reading all the HOWTOs before getting down to work. Don't
forget that all the HOWTOs are about 1MB compressed...
It's also confusing when the README *in* the kernel-source package says:
INSTALLING the kernel:
- If you install the full sources, do a
cd /usr/src
gzip -cd linux-2.0.XX.tar.gz | tar xfv -
to get it all put in place. Replace "XX" with the version number of the
latest kernel.
Many people wanting to run 2.0.33 will end up getting the full sources
package, as they can't patch 2.0.32... Of course, they can back out the
debian diff, but they won't know about that for the same reasons.
BTW, it would be nice if there was a kernel-source package diff
available. What I mean is, I have 2.0.32 kernel sources installed. At
some point 2.0.33 becomes available. I now have to go get the entire
2.0.33 kernel-source package, if I don't want to do some patch -R etc.
stuff. Having a patch package would be very convenient.
> > My apologies if I sound angry. I feel like I'm talking to a void.
>
> maybe you are. maybe everyone else here likes it the way it is and
Actually, I was pretty confused for a while. Once I understood the "problem",
I could live with it. Aside from what's right or not, we have to worry about
non-developers that have converted from Slackware or whatever. Hmmm, maybe a
README in /usr/src?
> thinks that manoj has done a great job with kernel-package.
Of course. BTW, *is* a 2.0.33 package in the making?
> if you want a maintainer to change the way their package does something,
> you don't do it by jumping in flaming the package and the maintainer.
> you do it by making reasonable and polite suggestions - if the
> maintainer doesn't like your suggestions, then take the sources for
> kernel-package and roll your own.
Actually, if I recall correctly, the original message was very polite.
Maybe this has escalated somewhat *because* it's a controversial point?
If so, just wait until 2.0 is released without some change on this point...
[shudder]
Paul Slootman
--
home: paul@wurtel.demon.nl | work: paul@murphy.nl
http://www.wurtel.demon.nl | Murphy Software, Enschede, the Netherlands
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: