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

Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!

also sprach Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com> [2003.09.21.1531 +0200]:
> So what?  Most packages in Debian devate from upstream in one way or
> another.

Yes, but no other package depends on exact lines of code in "most
packages in Debian".

I run vanilla sources anyhow, so I am not too concerned as a user.
But as a maintainer of a kernel patch, I am not willing to modify
the source to make it fit the inofficial kernel Debian provides. If
I were to do so, I'd have to lessen the package's value by removing
features, which I am sure is not going to be approved by upstream.

> (Also note that Red Hat modify the upstream kernel and libc in
> a quite drastic way; in fact, their kernel is much more modified
> than ours).

I know, but they also don't provide for such an easy and modular way
to extend it individually. Debian does provide it (thankfully), so
if you want to encourage kernel patches to exist, an official source
should be provided.

I don't see why we don't provide kernel-source packages that feature
the normal kernels, and *then* let people apply the debian-kernel
patch. Or even distribute kernel-source and debian-kernel-source.

Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them!
 .''`.     martin f. krafft <madduck@debian.org>
: :'  :    proud Debian developer, admin, and user
`. `'`
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!

Attachment: pgptnu1McL_kw.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: