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

Re: eliminating -source packages

For MOST purposes, the kernel source is the one source package that a LARGE
number of people feel they NEED.  I personally prefer to recompile my kernel for
my specific hardware configuration, and would hate to be forced to go back to
the net to download the source.  The thing is that, from what I remember, the
kernel source package only came out as a .gz file in my /usr/src directory,
which is completely useless, and wastes a LOT of disk space.

							Dave Bristel

On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Joey Hess wrote:

> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:21:39 -0700
> From: Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org>
> To: Peter Makholm <peter@makholm.net>
> Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: eliminating -source packages
> Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:20:38 -0700
> Resent-From: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Peter Makholm wrote:
> > Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> writes:
> > 
> > > So I got to thinking about apt-get source which seems like the logical
> > > solution. It handles a. pretty well, although it doesn't update the
> > 
> > As it is now we have the kernel-source on the binary cdroms. Should we
> > continue to have this if the kernel is turned into an ordinary source
> > package? (which seems to be almost what you're doing, right?)
> Last time I needed the kernel source, it was on cd #2 or #3 (which I
> didn't have), and so I had to download it. 
> I don't think it matters whether it's on cd #2 as a binary, or on source
> cd #1. If it could go on binary cd #1, that would of course be more useful
> to everyone who prefers to rebuild the kernel.
> -- 
> see shy jo
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: