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

Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!

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 <broonie@sirena.org.uk> [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.

Oliver, going to sleep now.

 : :' :    Oliver Kurth oku@debian.org
 `. `'           Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.org
When sending passwords, please use my gpg key. That's what it's good for.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: