On Mon, 2003-10-06 at 15:39, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Eduard Bloch <edi@gmx.de> [2003.09.22.1207 +0200]:
> > Let's create a package called "linux-2.4.22" or
> > "linux-2.4.22-pure-vanilla-source-for-you-to-patch" with a script which
> > does exactly this.
>
> I oppose. Let's get rid of kernel-{source,image,etc.} and provide
> linux-kernel-*. Then provide kernel-patch-debian and
> kernel-patch-ipsec as separate packages!
A-Freaking-MEN.
kernel-patch-2.4.x-debian would be rather large as well.
kernel-patch-2.4.x-ipsec makes things better.
kernel-source-2.4.x would then be able to be kernel.org schtuff
But, this would alleviate SOME of the problems. This would be NO DOUBT
very helpful. The Binary Kernel (as in the archives could have any an
all patches you see fit Herbert)
Would it NO doubt make entirely MUCH more sense, to only have to D/L the
Source Code once. It would definitely reduce the bandwidth needed for
making successive revisions of the "patched" kernel much less storage
required as well.
Please... At least consider the things that are being said(typed)...
that you patently refuse to even consider.
--
greg, greg@gregfolkert.net
REMEMBER ED CURRY! http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry
Cher ami, votre tendre chapeau a heurte trois de mes phalanges avec une
grace incomparable.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part