Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:18:37PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> 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.
You don't need to understand the problem that prompted our existing
kernel packages in order to create a new one that "just works"?
> > 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.
Then how do you suggest maintaining a kernel 2.4.20 for one
architecture and a 2.4.22 for another architecture, when you can't even
test on either of them? And how do you expect to ever upgrade the
result without duplicating all the work done by all the existing kernel
package maintainers for all Debian architectures?
This doesn't even make any sense. Might as well just set Architecture:
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer