Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 11:38:38AM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
> >I do not expect Robert's package to make any more of an attempt to convince
> >you a reboot is required than any of the other kernel packages.
> The current kernel packages include the version number in the package
> name, whereas Robert seems to be suggesting that his package would
> maintain the same name. As a result, if I upgrade a stable box, I'm
> going to need to reboot the system, whereas currently I can upgrade
> everything other than the kernel and then deal with the kernel at my
> leisure. I think this is a regression.
In some way, it is. The point Jamie holds is that such regression is not
really relevant in comparison with the problem the current packages have
of updating a package with the same version.
And even if it was, I claimed my packages has some advantages, but didn't
claim it doesn't have any disadvantages.
"[..] 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)