Re: slink release delayed
Sven LUTHER <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 1999 at 03:47:29AM -0800, Kevin Dalley wrote:
> > This isn't good enough. Having the source in 2.1 suggests that it is
> > worth compiling and running. Some people always compile their own
> > kernels and may not even notice the kernel-image is not included in
> but they will surely compile it from upstyream kernel sources, not the debian
> packages, or apply the newest patch to it, not just build it.
> if it is time still, maybe just a notice of the unstability in some errata
> file, or even in the control file would be nice and enough ...
A notice in an errata file is not good enough. Many people do not
bother to read errata files until something goes wrong. Losing data
on my disk would make me unhappy. Placing source code in the stable
distribution gives it the Debian stamp of approval, whether intended
or not. A warning in the control file *might* be noticed, and is
better than not having the warning. However, this is still not good
If someone picks up an upstream kernel source, Debian is not to blame.
In fact, 2.2.2 or later would probably be chosen, without the data
destruction bug. Leaving the bad 2.2.1 kernel in Debian 2.1 is a