Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel
I *know* I'm going to regret this...
On 10-Nov-03, 05:57 (CST), Robert Millan <zeratul2@wanadoo.es> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 07:47:37PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
>
> I'd really LOVE to. But this is my discussion. If I don't take part in it,
> who will respond to all these bogus arguments some people enjoy sending in?
But you haven't responded to any of the *legitimate* arguments, except
to say they're bogus, and that you "solve" them by ignoring them.
> Rather, this is you and the other trolls who are wasting my time.
No, they're a bunch of experienced Debian developers trying to explain,
in the face of overwhelming willful ignorance, *why* the kernel packages
are set up the way they are, and why what you're wanting to do is a bad
idea.
>
> dpkg-buildpackage
That doesn't give me the source, except by side effect, and I don't want
to have to build the package just to get the source.
(Yes, I'm well aware that there are other ways to see the source, but
you didn't answer the question as stated.)
> > And since there are a couple of these
> > hacks floating around, how to get the unpacked patched source is
> > non-obvious.
>
> It's as easy as in the rest of packages in Debian, no more, no less: Read
> debian/rules.
No, most of the packages in Debian give me the source with a simple
'dpkg-source -x'. No rules file reading necessary.
> It's easy for people who are already used to Debian de-facto standards.
> Since I am and you're not [1], that makes a difference. Therefore don't
> expect to understand it.
CDBS is *NOT* a de-facto standard, nor is DBS, nor any other of the
*BS. I'm not saying that they aren't useful, but they are by no means
any where near a majority. Each of the has a different way of unpacking
source, and it's non-trivial to find out how the first time you run
accross one.
That you can make such claim shows that you're the one unfamiliar with
standard Debian packaging.
> I responded to this before. We don't provide the Linux kernel packaged
> as a standard Debian package.
apt-get install kernel-image-2.4-386
> But certainly, you must be very scared of that possiblity, since you're
> wasting your time and inventing bogus arguments just to prevent it from even
> being in Debian at all.
The people objecting to your proposal have no vested interest in
anything except a working Debian distribution. Your package is
inherently likely to lead to breakage and confusion. Are you just
completely incapable of conceiving or admitting that you've made a
mistake, and that you need to solve the problems being presented rather
than just ignoring them and insulting people by assuming that they're
making personal attacks?
> Less risky? That's interesting. If you have some suggestions, perhaps you
> can help me improve my package.
Oh, that's a hoot, since you've been ignoring or belittling every one
who has been trying to improve it.
> Of course it does. Tell me what is inconsistent in my list of
> advantages. (And please, don't repeat the same arguments over again).
Which is it? Do you want the answer, or are you going to continue to
ignore the answer?
"what's 2+2"
"4"
"No, what's 2+2, and don't keeping answering 4"
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
Reply to: