On Sun, 2010-10-17 at 22:57 +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote: > On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 10:51:08AM +0000, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > > > > On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 06:39:35AM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote: > > > Since several years back, kernel.org has provided linux tarballs > > > with both 3 part (e.g. 2.6.35) and 4 part (e.g. 2.6.35.7) version > > > numbers in their filenames. > > > > This package is for building Debian kernels that always use the three > > part version. > > > > Reopen. > > The instructions in README.source (the first part) are > explicitly about how to upgrade the package to a new *upstream* > source tarball from kernel.org and turning that into a > Debian-form tarball usable with the rest of the package. > > Therefore rejecting this bug with reference to all *other* parts > of the package being for Debian pre-packaged kernel sources is > nonsense. We never treat stable updates as new upstream versions. You are inventing new requirements for README.source. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part