On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, David Spreen wrote: > well, perhaps herbert xu will listen to you, he doesn't listen to me. He listened to you just fine, I bet. He did not *agree* with you. > My problem is the following, I do not know why it is necessary to > modify the kernelsource from upstream so much, that patches etc. do not Because the linux vanilla kernel is not always the best choice. Our kernel maintainer reads the kernel mailinglist and knows of patches that should make it to the kernel ASAP for example. You will notice that most other distros do the same. RedHat and SuSE distribute _heavily_ patched kernels, for example. Debian's is actually quite light as far as patches go. > the _linux_ source (the package description told me that he packaged > _linux_ sources and not xu-sources) that the patch-package people still can > apply their patches. He notes his changes in README.Debian, and most kernel-patch packages will work just fine against Xu's patched sources. Those that don't are usually easy enough to fix. (although I did not manage to get LVM and new RAID to cooperate, but that's not Xu's fault :P ). > I don't think that every patch maintainer has to modify his patches to > be compatible with the GNU/herbert kernel, right? Wrong. They do. If it is too much of a bother for a maintainer, he should orphan the package -- he doesn't care enough about that particular package to maintain it IMHO. Do it right, and integrate it well with the rest of Debian, or do not do it at all; again IMHO. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh
Attachment:
pgp3OMHIaIn2n.pgp
Description: PGP signature