Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!
George Danchev wrote:
>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...
Nonsense. As a trivial counterexample, take a look at the
changelog.Debian from kernel-source-2.0.36.
>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/
And then try to compile it on anything other than i386. For some
architectures, on some kernel versions, it'll work. Most of the time, it
>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
Historical precedent is against you. That's not to say that the current
situation is ideal, but statements like this don't help.
Matthew Garrett | email@example.com