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

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

On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 02:33:30PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
>  1.  You want to use CDBS, which might be a nice hack, but it's hardly
>      normal.

I don't recall listing CDBS as one of the advantages.

>  2.  kernel-image-* contains images in a deb.
>  3.  You seem to have a problem with the kernel-source-* packges, which
>      I honestly don't follow.

Do you understand what standarisation means?

>  >>   I could finaly work out where everything is, but the current
>  >>   situation is confusing.
>  Confusing to you.  Sounds like a job for a README.  Do realise that
>  CDBS (or similar hacks) also require familiarity with the particular
>  system.

You're deliberately mixing things that hold no relation. The way debian/rules
is created differs from package to package all over Debian. It's not new
that when you read a debian/rules you might not be familiar with it (which,
btw, is one of the reasons why CDBS exists).

>  And that's a problem... why?  I don't mean to say that the situation is
>  perfect nor beautiful, but please do tell me how you want to fix that.
>  [...]

I thought it was easy to understand. My package basicaly does:

 - Merge kernel-{image,source,patch} in one package (orig+diff+deb)
 - Merge different versions in a single one (the latest)
 - Merge sub-architectures (except, perhaps, in very special cases)

>  Which people actually working with non-i386 architectures have tried to
>  explain to you already, but you insist on shoving the problem under the
>  rug without actually showing that you _can indeed_ handle the it.  As
>  Daniel said, you might as well call this Architecture: i386 from the
>  beginning.

You're wasting my time by arguing this. I'll rather respond to it by showing
you a multi-arch package.

>  Do notice that this asseveration implicitly expands your userbase to
>  non-i386 users, which in my book fall flat out of the category
>  "newbie".

Not in mine, but note there's a difference between targetting at newbies and
targetting at people who want a more consistent scheme.

>  >>    This is specialy important for security updates. Remember DSA-358
>  >>    and DSA-336, for which the security team had to build the Linux
>  >>    kernel manualy for all our architectures, delaying the advisory?
>  (you did notice that your package creates more work for the security
>  team, right?

Yep. They have to do a dummy source upload so that buildd's rebuild it with no
changes. On the other side, end users of non-i386 get the update inmediately.

> just wondering, since you asked who "everybody" was)

The security team is not everybody, so my question still remains.

>  That bug is not prevented by your scheme.  People using your packaging
>  won't see it,

Yep, and that's an advantage.

> but that's one or two universes away from what you claim.

What did you think I claim, exactly?

>  And for practical purposes, this is cosmetic, and solvable with
>  different methods.

The bug severity was "critical". Preventing to hit a critical bug is what
you call "cosmetic"?

>  Ask Herbert to maintain a kernel-image-i386
>  package, if that's so important to you.  It's just a few more lines in
>  a debian/control file worth of work for him.

Actualy, Herbert likes having a separate package for experimentation:


>  > >  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
>  Oh, now you sound like a broken record.

Your question didn't really deserve a better answer.

>  I asked you to define your target userbase, so please characterize your
>  userbase.  "Those who like what I do" is not a characterization.  What
>  kind of expertise do your users have?  What kind of job do they perform
>  with their Debian systems?

I don't see why should I do that. Enumerating the advantages is quite enough.
Some people will appreciate them, and some not.

>  I read that, thanks.  I was dissappointed that Herbert thinks that
>  experimenting with packaging methods in this way is good, in particular
>  I wonder if he realizes that once a package is shipped with a stable
>  release, getting rid of it is a PITA.  Herbert didn't actually say he'd
>  like to see this as part of a release (he only said "hosting"
>  actually), but I'll give you the benefit of doubt on that.

Herbert said what he said, period. Wether my package is suitable for stable
or not is behind the scope of his mail.

>  > Those who like the advantages described in:
>  > 
>  > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200311/msg00414.html
>  Oh, come on, did you even read the question?

Yes. You asked the same question twice. Isn't the same response twice
good enough?

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: