Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:35:52PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > I haven't noticed, so thanks for pointing this out. The fix is trivial, btw.
> If you think that, then you don't understand why they are all built
I don't need to understand that.
> They all require different patches.
> They all require different kernel versions, in general.
> They all require different binaries to be shipped and different tools
> to be used to build them.
Are you suggesting I can't deal with trivial packaging issues like that? I
know how Build-Depends work. I also know how to apply patches conditionaly.
> And suggesting autobuilding kernels for an architecture other than the
> one the maintainer tests them on seems like an extremely bad idea.
Why? Don't we autobuild Glibc? Do you think the Glibc maintainers don't test
their packages properly for non-i386? (Yes, I know you're one of them.)
"[..] 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)