Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel
#include <hallo.h>
* Robert Millan [Sat, Nov 08 2003, 05:15:17PM]:
> On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 09:54:32AM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > > It's not "cosmetic". The point is it has a completely different
> > > packaging style and philosophy. I want to package the Linux kernel in
> > > the same way the rest of Debian is packaged, that's all.
> >
> > Until now you have failed to provide a reason for that, other than
> > cosmetic reasons.
>
> See:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200311/msg00414.html
Everything you mentioned there has been declared as pointless in this
thread. Even the reason "automatical major updates... when 2.6 is
suitable..." is bogus since many users have special reasons to keep the
kernel. And things like libc incompatible with some kernel has to be
dealt with inside of the kernel package. Your "linux" package is in no
better position to handle that issue.
> > Please _define_ your target user base,
>
> Those who like the advantages described in:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200311/msg00414.html
Where? Please show me the sentence!
> > sake of it. If someone wants to work on such a thing I won't stop
> > them. If they send patches I'll look at them. But it will take a good
> > deal of talking to convince me that that _per se_ is better.
>
> Read what the current Linux kernel maintainer says:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200311/msg00452.html
Defining it as an experiment. Not successor. Experiments may or may be
successfull, even independent of what the previous authority says. Just
in contrary, bf2.4 has been an experiment, was honored by _real_ users
and matured, though Herbert tried to fight it.
> > So, your package _can't_ be the default kernel package, because that
> > needs to be supported on all architectures the installer supports.
> > Which makes me wonder again: what is your target userbase?
>
> Those who like the advantages described in:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200311/msg00414.html
Where? As said before, you are NOT going to decrease the number of
kernel-image versions, nor do you try to make them more useful or more
stable. You just create another fork, promising "easy understanding of
the packge for developers" (*) but taking the generic name away.
(*) I cannot remember any of actual kernel-image maintainers with severe
complaints about Herbert's way of packaging.
MfG,
Eduard.
--
Bringen Hufeisen wirklich Glück? Ich bezweifle es - ich habe schon
viele unglückliche Pferde gesehen.
-- Pearl Sydenstricker Buck (Pseudonym: Sedges, John)
Reply to: