Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 04:22:27PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:18:37PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > 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"?
> Really?
No. You're putting words in my mouth.
I don't need to understand why the patches can't be merged in order to apply
the corresponding patch for each architecture. As I said, it's a trivial
packaging issue.
> > 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?
I wouldn't. I'm going to track the latest minor version, just like the rest
of Debian packages do.
> 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?
Build-Depends: [...], kernel-patch-2.4.22-powerpc [powerpc], [...]
> This doesn't even make any sense. Might as well just set Architecture:
> i386.
Do you have any other point, asides of pretending I'm incompetent at packaging?
--
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: