Re: possible compromise for ITP: linux?
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 02:05:50PM +0100, Eike Sauer wrote:
> Andreas Metzler schrieb:
> > Eike Sauer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> There already are several packages with complete
> >> kernel sources which take as much place as his package
> >> would, right?
> > Robert does not propose to remove the existing kernel-source packages
> Even he was a bit vague about that (sometimes I understood
> the large number of kernel packages used as an argument
> for his idea, which seemed to imply that he wants to remove
> many of them), I understood that. I wanted to say that the
> size of his packages are not too large to be included if
> we find they do something useful.
I'll try to be more specific. The argument consists in that I provide a pair
of separate packages (linux and linux-2.4) which are clearly distinguishable
from the "big set" (kernel-*). Then the user can choose between figuring out
how the kernel-* work, or figuring out how the linux* work.
My pretension is that the former is much more simple and straightforwarded
for the end user (and developer).
> > in exchange for ...?
> That goes to Robert.
Uhm. As I told him we already went through this. I was asked this question
already, and already responded, so I don't really know what to say.
Just have a look at:
"[..] 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)