Re: create new Debian-Kernel project (was: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel)
#include <hallo.h>
* Jamie Wilkinson [Tue, Nov 11 2003, 11:28:43PM]:
> >Note that the name is choosen not only to attract the user, but also to
> >catch that who blindly use "apt-get source linux". The user wouldn't get
> >the well-known and good kernel-source packages but something which is
> >under control of Robert. Further, what they would get is not a clean
> >source but something with debian/ dir inside which would confuse
> >make-kpkg. I would not mind if he had called it "linux-rmh" or such.
>
> I do not understand your point, you are trying to protect users who
> inadvertently type "apt-get source linux"? When I type "apt-get source
This was just a counter-argument to a bogus one: "apt-get source
kernel-image-..." would not bring the real source usable to compile a
kernel. Note that his package does not that either.
> pppoeconf", do I not get the source to the Debian package of ppoeconf? Why
> should it be any different? I'm not convinced that people type "apt-get
> source x" inadvertently either.
Eh, do you really know how the kernel stuff is currently packaged?
The problem was not getting the source of the package. In fact, "apt-get
source kernel-image-..." gets the exact source of the package but not
the whole source. In order to get the actual source you have to run
debian/rules with some argument first. So if he "just repackages the
kernel-source from Herbert" he does not do it much different.
> Your second sentence is flagrant abuse, and its tone seems common in your
> attempts at constructing a reasoned argument. Please try to keep civil,
> Eduard. I trust your ability to maintain your packages, as I trust everyone
> else in this project, at least until I see the product of their work.
Thanks. But who do you trust more: Robert or experienced kernel-image packagers?
> Confusing make-kpkg would be an issue, I suppose -- given that one could
> want to get any kernel source and build it with the tools they're familiar
> with. If it were me, I'd make sure to include some extra information in the
> package README.
Look, you just admit that getting the source is not that easy one-step
work as expected by the user. And if does require some extra work, what
is the big difference between fiddling with the current system and with
the CDBS version? The last one requires even more additional
build-dependencies.
> >> Are you implying that you make up names for the software that you package,
> >> rather than use the name given to it by upstream? I believe you don't.
> >
> >Ah, that is a good base to start a discussion. Of course it is better to
> >keep the upstreams name but make exceptions if they are too generic, to
> >confusing or to offensive (though we did already accept such ones, eg.
> >"pornview" ;)).
>
> I concur that packages have been renamed where their name is too generic,
> such as verbs and short nouns (one of my earliest packages, imgstamp, was
> originally named 'stamp' and rejected). However, this is the word 'linux'.
> What else do you think it could possibly refer to?
linux-kernel-experimental, kernel-experimental or such.
MfG,
Eduard.
--
Kannst Du wie jedes ordentliche Device mit ACK oder 200 Ok antworten?
-- Joey
Reply to: