Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:48:06PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> 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 then you won't build on any architecture unless the architecture
moves to that kernel version. This has been known to take _years_.
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer