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

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel


I think you haven't read my previous mail:


Please have a look at it, my response below assumes you did.

On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 08:56:38AM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
>  As an academic exercise this is fine and dandy, but having two
>  competing packagings of the same _basic_ component can't do us any
>  good.

This isn't a "competing" package. As I said before, the standard way Linux
kernel packaging is handled is "a good choice for the power user". I don't
intend to "replace" it or the like, just add more options for the people who
like them.

>  If you have a problem with the way kernel packages are handled
>  (upgrades in particular, which seems to be your problem), go talk with
>  the official kernel image packages maintainer and work something out.

If I had a "problem" with some package, I'd use the BTS or speak with the
maintainer. This is not the case here. As explained before, my package
build-depends on "kernel-patch-debian" and uses the standard patchset in
that package. Rather than "duplicating work", it is "building on top of
existing work".

When I announced it (previous mail), Herbert Xu was on CC. He's the maintainer
of "kernel-patch-debian" which does the real work for this package. My package
is simply an extension for Herbert's work. I don't know wether he's interested
or not in this extension, but I do obviously welcome his participation.

>  This creates _more_ work for everybody.

Who is "everybody" (asides Linux kernel module maintainers)?

>  What do you want to do with
>  binaries of kernel modules?  Have more duplication of effort?

That's up to the module maintainers. Adding support for the Linux kernel when
packaged as a standard Debian package is easy for them, since in packaging
terms it's not much different than linking your package against a library.

Certainly, if they choose to "duplicate effort" and support both alternatives,
that will prove me right in the fact that both of them are interesting for the
end user.

Robert Millan

"[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he
gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work."

 -- J.R.R.T, Ainulindale (Silmarillion)

Reply to: