[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 03:35:52PM -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
> separately.

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.)

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: