Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 02:29:13PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > I don't like turning this ITP into a technical discussion to prove either
> > my dessign is consistent or I'm capable as a maintainer. However I'll respond
> > to your question this time:
> Why could you not just wait for the debian-kernel mailing list to be
> created and really discuss your proposal there with other maintainers
> (which may have more experience in packaging kernels for different
> architectures) instead of pushing your own ideas as the one best thing?
As I said before, I'm open for discussion, not trying to "push my own ideas
as the one best thing". Note that I initialy explained how my package isn't
meant to be "the one best thing" and replace the current ones, but rather an
addition for people to have more options.
I'm still not sure if my package will fit exactly with your former proposal,
but I'll be happy to discuss all your concerns in debian-kernels.
> > Place the package files in /usr/lib, and copy them conditionaly (debconf)
> > into /boot. The debconf question would properly explain that if per chooses
> > to update it, then the system must be rebooted promptly.
> (You can read peoples mind? ;) A similar method is also on my Design
> paper for the next debian-kernel generation...)
It was a somewhat logical conclussion, so it isn't strange that we came up
with the same separately.
And excuse me for not having read all the docs you pointed at before, as
you have noticed I've been really busy with other things (like, say,
responding to hundreds of emails).
> Note that copying files takes double space. Better method would be
> installing the files into a new directory "/boot/dk-linux-x.y.z/" and
> adding symlinks from them to /boot/.... Same for
Sounds nice. We can discuss all this later. As I said, I'm open for that.
> > I don't feel it necessary. But this is not the first trivial maintainer issue
> > I'm being pointed at in this ITP, and I'm getting the impression that some
> > people are doing it deliberately.
> As said before, people look for reasons to justificate the choice of the
> package name, causing additional "confusion" for users and waste of
> archive space without seeing much advantages. And you fail to explain
> those advantages so don't wonder about so many people not liking this
Could be, but that doesn't justify using maintainer issues as an excuse
against my ITP.
"[..] 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)