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

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

This one time, at band camp, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>Robert Millan wrote:
>>On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 08:33:00PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> klogd will be unable to look up symbols, and ps and top need it for
>>> wchan to be displayable.
>>I'm so scared. wchan won't be displayable!
>What were you saying about sarcasm? The fact remains that it's a bug,
>and it's a bug that you should already have thought of. Put simply, if
>this is the level of research you've done, I don't think you're suitable
>for packaging something as important as the kernel. This doesn't mean
>that you shouldn't do it (as an academic exercise it'd be a wonderful
>learning experience, and lessons learned may be well applied else where)
>- I just don't think it should go anywhere near the archive.


Kernels install /boot/System.map-$version.  There's a symlink from
/boot/System.map to the current version.

You are told you need to reboot after installing a kernel package.

How much more research is there that needs to be done for this particular

It looks to me like you're harping on a single issue which would have been
encountered during the process of making this package, and based on this
Robert is suddenly a second-class maintainer?

If everyone in this project had to get the right answer first time, there
would be a lot fewer maintainers and a lot fewer bugs in the BTS.

>>You're mixing trivial maintainer issues with this ITP. It's very pity of you
>>if you're doing it on purpose.
>No, I'm saying that you're proposing to package a major piece of
>infrastructure and give it a name that may attract users into installing
>it, and the amount of thought and consideration that you seem to have
>put in is insufficiently large for me to consider that it'll do anything
>other than convince people that Debian kernel packagers are on crack.
>Which would, again, be bad.

I'd reiterate that you're implying Robert is going to make a half-arsed
attempt and upload something he hasn't tested, but I've already said that.

Besides, it's already evident that Debian maintainers (as a superset of
kernel packagers) are on crack.

This thread scores 3 Trogdors out of a possible 5 for flamability.

Reply to: