[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: On linux kernel packaging issue

> I'm not removing anything. All I do is providing an alternative. If you
> don't like my alternative, you may keep using the current scheme.

The impression after reaIding the initial discussion was that this ITP 
intends to replace the old scheme.
If this is not true, I will stop my complains. Perhaps I should stop 
reading flamewars :)

> They won't. Just like Glibc maintainers don't provide optimised
> packages I don't see why should I provide them.

Note that it is no longer true for current sid packages.

nikita@bliss:~> apt-cache search libc6-i686
libc6-i686 - GNU C Library: Shared libraries [i686 optimized]

AFAIK, Debian policy on optimized building is "do it for packages that 
really gain from it". E.g. libssl, libc6, (of course) kernel.

> The same way users get customized packages of anything else in Debian:
> get the source, add/remove patches, build it.

The difference is that in most cases there is little reason to rebuild 
package instead of just using debian-provided binaries.
However, unlike other packages, kernel often really needs local 
customization. That's why make-kpkg exists, I believe.

Reply to: