Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 08:31:39AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
>
> But you haven't responded to any of the *legitimate* arguments, except
> to say they're bogus, and that you "solve" them by ignoring them.
That implies all my responses merely claim "they're bogus". It's very easy
to pretend that, but I disagree.
> > Rather, this is you and the other trolls who are wasting my time.
>
> No, they're a bunch of experienced Debian developers trying to explain,
> in the face of overwhelming willful ignorance, *why* the kernel packages
> are set up the way they are, and why what you're wanting to do is a bad
> idea.
I didn't claim all of them are trolling. But a few of them are. Also IIRC I
haven't put in question their experience as developers.
> > dpkg-buildpackage
>
> That doesn't give me the source, except by side effect, and I don't want
> to have to build the package just to get the source.
>
> (Yes, I'm well aware that there are other ways to see the source, but
> you didn't answer the question as stated.)
You're directing your question to the wrong place. This doesn't apply only
to my package, but to all Debian packages. So if there is a flaw on this
(which I don't think there is) it applies to the rest of Debian.
> > > And since there are a couple of these
> > > hacks floating around, how to get the unpacked patched source is
> > > non-obvious.
> >
> > It's as easy as in the rest of packages in Debian, no more, no less: Read
> > debian/rules.
>
> No, most of the packages in Debian give me the source with a simple
> 'dpkg-source -x'. No rules file reading necessary.
Not that many, actualy. An important number of them apply patches dynamicaly
either directly or after unpacking upstream sources.
> > It's easy for people who are already used to Debian de-facto standards.
> > Since I am and you're not [1], that makes a difference. Therefore don't
> > expect to understand it.
> >
> > [1] Your reasoning shows either you're not used to them, or you're plainly
> > trolling. I'll assume the first at your convenience.
>
> CDBS is *NOT* a de-facto standard,
When I said "de-facto standards" I didn't refer to CDBS. There's currently
no de-facto standard for debian/rules files, although there are a bunch of
attempts at becoming one (and CDBS is one of them).
> > I responded to this before. We don't provide the Linux kernel packaged
> > as a standard Debian package.
>
> apt-get install kernel-image-2.4-386
That's not standard. Do you "apt-get install bash-image-2-386", or
"apt-get install bash-source-2"?
> > But certainly, you must be very scared of that possiblity, since you're
> > wasting your time and inventing bogus arguments just to prevent it from even
> > being in Debian at all.
>
> The people objecting to your proposal have no vested interest in
> anything except a working Debian distribution. Your package is
> inherently likely to lead to breakage and confusion.
I agree that my package is in an experimental and inmature stage, if that's
what you mean. Uploading to experimental instead of unstable is an option,
renaming to "linux-experimental" as Colin pointed is an option, too. I accept
to do one of these if there's a clear consensus.
> Are you just
> completely incapable of conceiving or admitting that you've made a
> mistake, and that you need to solve the problems being presented rather
> than just ignoring them and insulting people by assuming that they're
> making personal attacks?
Actualy, I recall making some mistakes in this thread, and rectifiing. I don't
recall insulting people, unless you think "troll" is an insult.
> > Less risky? That's interesting. If you have some suggestions, perhaps you
> > can help me improve my package.
>
> Oh, that's a hoot, since you've been ignoring or belittling every one
> who has been trying to improve it.
I haven't ignored anyone. As for belittling, it only applies to those who
"found" dessign problems which actualy don't exist.
> > Of course it does. Tell me what is inconsistent in my list of
> > advantages. (And please, don't repeat the same arguments over again).
>
> Which is it? Do you want the answer, or are you going to continue to
> ignore the answer?
Your question implies I have ignored someone's argument, which AFAIK isn't
true. If you are going to claim otherwise, provide a link to it.
--
Robert Millan
"[..] 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)
Reply to: