Re: What is a Kernel?
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 08:41:36PM +0300, Moshe Zadka wrote:
> I was horrified to find out that the kernel is "Required". The official
> reason is "well, people compile kernels themselves". Well, people might
It seems like this shouldn't be the way to solve the problem... I can
understand it from one point of view, but from another it makes little
to no sense. From a stock install, yes, you need a kernel -- and an easy
way to do that is make a kernel package that is required. In theory, though,
it seems like it would get in the way (though I have not yet ever encountered
_my_ kernel being replaced in a dist-upgrade...).
To me, at least, it would make more sense to just have the installer slap
a kernel on the system if you're installing anew (not sure if that would
violate any Debian philosophy).
> What we need is some /etc/alternatives-like interface to kernels, and
> have people installing kernels from .debs. They can still compile
> themselves -- apt-get source, make config, make debian package and
As someone already pointed out, that facility does exist already.
But for simplicity's sake, it's almost pointless. It's faster (and simpler)
to just do a make config/deps/bzlilo than it is to config and then build a deb
out of it. Offering the ability to do You-Do-It Debified Kernels is nice,
but the second we force people to do that, it's a problem. ("If it ain't broke,
don't fix it" -- you can compile kernels without packaging them now, so I
don't see a real reason to do it any other way)