On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 06:04:45PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 12:30:45AM +0200, Oliver Kurth wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 10:08:57PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > > > also sprach Mark Brown <email@example.com> [2003.09.22.1109 +0200]: > > > > Well, what you seem to want is to have the kernel source avaliable > > > > in a format that makes packaging kernel patches easy. That seems > > > > like a different issue to me. > > > > No, this is the issue. I want the kernel sources to be what they > > > promise, and not what Herbert wants them to be. I can opt-in on have > > > the bells and whistles Herbert thinks should belong in every > > > kernel-image, but if I don't make that choice, I want to have the > > > kernel-source with just the security fixes. After all, Debian is > > > known for two things: purity and security. I don't see the first one > > > applying to kernel-source, and given that IPsec is in beta state, > > > I don't see the second either. > > > I agree with Martin. If patches in the base package make additional > > kernel patch packages impossible, they should not be applied. Users > > should have the choice which patches they want to apply. > > As stated above, this is not a reasonable restriction. An arbitrary > kernel patch package might conflict with *any* changes made to the > kernel-source package, including simple security fixes. The Security fixes are another matter. If it conflicts with a patch, so be it, but in that case the maintainer of that patch is responsible to change the patch accordingly - which should not be difficult. > kernel-source maintainer must have some flexibility to maintain his > packages in the manner he believes best meets their primary purpose, > which AIUI is to provide a suitable base from which to build > kernel-image packages to be distributed in Debian. How can a vanilla kernel prevent the packager to build (any) kernel images? Or how does a kernel, built with any patches, hinder from building kernel-images? > The burden is on the kernel patch maintainer to provide something which > works with the packages it depends on. If this is achieved by > *persuading* the kernel source maintainer to revert a given patch, so > much the better; but there's one kernel source maintainer and n kernel > patch maintainers -- it's clear which end rightly bears the > responsibility of making those n packages work. So it's the kernel source maintainer, because that's only one person? Sorry, I have the feeling that I missed something. Greetings, Oliver, going to sleep now. -- .''`. : :' : Oliver Kurth firstname.lastname@example.org `. `' Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.org `- When sending passwords, please use my gpg key. That's what it's good for.
Description: Digital signature