Re: Will nvidia-graphics-drivers ever transition to testing?
Le May 12, 2008 09:39:25 am Lennart Sorensen, vous avez écrit :
> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 03:39:15PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> > Yes, the problems with conglomeration packages are the same as you'd get
> > by merging 2 somewhat related source packages together, say iceweasel
> > with icedove. Although the source packages would probably share a bit of
> > code, if there's a libpng transition and only iceweasel is ready, you
> > need to drop icedove, but your only choices are to drop icedove and
> > iceweasel or re-upload with a disabled icedove. Transitions get longer
> > and/or versions are bumped constantly. For example,
> > linux-modules-extra-2.6 was uploaded 7 times to unstable in 2008, while
> > iceweasel was only uploaded 5 times.
> > linux-modules-extra-2.6 only did one Linux ABI transition during that
> > time. If nvidia prebuilt modules are merged in linux-modules-nonfree-2.6,
> > they'll be tied to kqemu prebuilt modules. This would hurt both nvidia
> > LKM-s and kqemu LKM-s, which are already in bad enough shape.
>
> linux-modules-extra-2.6 was uploaded many times since more and more
> modules were getting added to its list to build.
Well, yes, that's a bit what I wrote.
> It is only changed when new module packages should be supported by it,
> and when a new kernel comes out so that it can explicitly build modules
> for that new kernel.
No, a more frequent change is disabling/enabling modules [on some arch]. Even
if you were right, adding new module packages doesn't "justify" updating
other modules. Reusing the ice* example, suppose that Debian would have such
an icezoo source package and Mozilla would release a new IRC client. Adding,
say, icebear, to the packages generated by icezoo wouldn't make me happy,
because I'd have to update iceweasel even if I wouldn't use icebear.
Otherwise, I wouldn't like iceweasel updates to be blocked just because
icebear has a serious regression.
Reply to: