Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!
* Martin Pitt <email@example.com> [030922 10:40]:
> Speaking as an user, it is perfectly okay and desirable to have a
> _default_ installation Debian kernel which is patched (security, ALSA,
> whatever). Those users who don't care or don't know about kernel
> compiling issues will rest in peace and will benefit from updated
> packages from time to time.
> But as soon as I plan to compile a kernel by myself, I expect that the
> content delivers what its label promises! Thats a matter of principle,
> not a matter of measure. "yeah, but look at distribution xyz, they do
> it even worse" is IMHO not the best approach, Debian should not clone
> other's faults but try to be better.
Speaking as a user, too, I want something I can compile a kernel from.
I'm no kernel hacker and do not intend to become one. Thus I see
absolutely no reason, why I should want a debian-package with a
unmodified source-tree. Escecially as an unmodified source-tree is in
my experience almost only useful for i386. (Perhaps getting better
in the last time, but anything not a debian kernel used to be even
a larger nightmare than the debian-kernels).
So your complain reduces in my eyes to an incomplete label.
I personally think not having the term "linux" in it more of
an issue than having "-debian" in it...
Bernhard R. Link
Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing
an editor and a MTA.