Re: kernel-* package names

[brian@debian.org (Brian Mays)]

jeroen@dekkers.cx (Jeroen Dekkers) wrote:

> ... By the way I also don't see why the linux source should be a
> special package, AFAIK we have apt-get source for source packages.

Then it's obvious you have never looked into how the kernel-image-*
packages are built.  We do not, as of yet, have a mechanism for packages
to declare build-time dependencies on the sources of packages (i.e., the
dsc, diff.gz and orig.tar.gz files), and even if we did, there is no
mechanism for extracting and placing the sources of these packages in a
standard location for the debian/rules file to find and use.

The kernel-image packages not only have a kernel-source package in their
Build-Depends field, they usually also include one or more packages that
contain patches to be applied against the extracted kernel source.
Placing a tarball of the source in a regular Debian package -- while not
as elegant as using a packaging system that treats binary packages and
their sources in an equivalent fashion -- is a good way to ensure that
the source can be found in a standard location on a Debian system when
needed.  I see no reason to change this practice.

Another advantage of a kernel-source package is that it would often be
included on a CD of .deb files, where the source of a kernel package
would not be found.  Let's face it, most users do not compile their
own copies of the packages they install on their system; however, many
of these users do compile their own kernel.  Clearly the kernel is a
special case, and it is understandable if we treat it as such.

- Brian