Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!
On Monday 22 September 2003 13:13, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Martin Pitt <firstname.lastname@example.org> [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 afraid that more people here speak as maintainers and the point is about
what kind(s) of kernel-source packages Debian provides... it is not just
something you compile kernel images from... it has reasonable names following
the content it provides;-)
> 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.
Let me point out that Debian has always provided upstream (unmodified/
pristine) kernel source by the means of kernel-source-x.y.z packages and
kernel-patch-<whatever> ... and so on ... Now with kernel-source-2.4.22 the
situation has been changed...
Please read /usr/share/doc/kernel-source-2.4.22/README.Debian.gz for more.
Nice patch has been applied to vanilla sources (note: provided by
kernel-source-2.4.22) instead just being distributed as regular
kernel-patch-<ipsec-or-so> ... Note that this patch doesn't fix security
issue(s), but instead adds a feature. It is all fine, but let the user
decides if s/he wants to have it applied against vanilla sources and do it
his/herself... Otherwise you convey debian users to kernel.org or bkbits.net
to get pristine sources and then apply patches if any.
> Escecially as an unmodified source-tree is in
> my experience almost only useful for i386. (Perhaps getting better
Not true ;-) So called by you unmodified has all architecture-specific code
inside. Get a kernel from kernel.org or svn from bkbits.net and cd arch/
> in the last time, but anything not a debian kernel used to be even
> a larger nightmare than the debian-kernels).
Now you have a real nightmare with kernel-source-2.4.22 (named to bring the
upstream 2.4.22, but instead patched and that was documented of course, but
that is not the Debian way of dealing with kernels) breaking bunch of usefull
Again, if the aboves continue to happen, then most likely bunch of users will
get their pristine kernel sources not from debian archive (which is sad) and
Reasonable names following the spirit of debian imho are:
kernel-source-2.4.22 (strict vanilla)
kernel-patch-debian-2.4.22 (patch applied by Debian, Hurray ! yet another
vendor specific kernel source tree ;-)
kernel-patch-<other-features>-<version> (other usefull patches)
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <keyserver.bu.edu>
1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB