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

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

reopen 219582

Your useless attempt to close the bug proves you have no real interest
on consensus. I'll remember that next time you mention the c word.

On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:00:57PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > 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.

You came up with that, but I'm not going to repeat the same discussion.

Now paste a link or withdraw your claim.

> Even the reason "automatical major updates... when 2.6 is
> suitable..." is bogus since many users have special reasons to keep the
> kernel.

If they're _special_ reasons, then they can't be _many_ users. Users without
such special reasons will like my package.

> 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.



> > 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!

The whole mail is about the advantages. Go read it.

> 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.

I fully agree. When _real_ users try it, all of us (including you, Herbert,
and myself) will find out wether it was a good experiment or not.

Rather, the consensus consists in that it is a _worthy_ experiment. If the
consensus was that it is a successor, it'd be a pointless consensus. It'll
take years to find out wether my package can become default or not.

> 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. 

That's not my intention. Herbert maintains the kernel-image packages. Speak
with him.

> You just create another fork,

It's not a fork. As I said a bunch of times I'm using Herbert's patchset.

> 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.

I'm not really worried about what you can't remember. Read the whole thread
again, you'll find people who actualy think the new dessign is more consistent.

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: