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

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

On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:00:26PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> You have not obsoleted any of the kernel patch packages.

It's not my intention to obsolete anything, but whenever I have to add my own
patches they will be in debian/patches directory where people expect them to
be, not in a separate binary.

You're getting out of the point, though. The confusion I explained would still
remain without the "kernel-patch-*" packages.

> Have you perhaps noticed that the kernels from every architecture build
> from different source packages?  Why don't you spend a little time
> working out why this is so, what the issues are with trying to do it
> from one package, and why we don't do that already?

I haven't noticed, so thanks for pointing this out. The fix is trivial, btw.

> >    Glibc:
> >      #215010: Illegal instruction with 2.2 kernel
> > 
> >    This is not unusual. IIRC, Woody's Glibc wasn't supported by Linux 2.0 (I
> >    once tried an upgrade from Slink after the Woody release)
> I fail to see how a bug in the 2.2 kernel, triggered by a recent glibc
> update, dictates anything at all.  A substantial portion of Debian
> users won't run the kernel we supply anyway, no matter how we choose to
> supply it.

Indeed. And the point is: a small portion will run my package and will be safe
from hitting this sort of bugs.

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: