Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:28:13PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Robert Millan wrote:
> >I wouldn't. I'm going to track the latest minor version, just like the rest
> >of Debian packages do.
> You really, massively, hugely fail to understand the problem here. The
> upstream kernel tree works on a small number of architectures. To deal
> with this, several other architectures have their own trees. These trees
> may be roughly synchronised with the kernel.org tree - in most cases,
> they're not (they may be utterly broken at the point where 2.4.x comes
> out, for instance, resulting in the next usable version of their kernel
> being somewhere around 2.4.x+1). There are some sub-architectures where
> the maintainer resynchronises their tree against the kernel.org one
> every 6 months or so, and in the intermediate period is still working on
> 2.4.(x-5). Always packaging the latest minor version would kill Debian
> on a wide range of machines.
> But, of course, you know this already, because you've researched these
> issues in advance.
No. I know this already because other people just kindly told me like you're
If upstream sucks, it's not the end of the world. Glibc doesn't support all
architectures in upstream, and we live with that don't we?
"[..] 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)