George Danchev wrote: >Let me point out that Debian has always provided upstream (unmodified/ >pristine) kernel source by the means of kernel-source-x.y.z packages and >kernel-patch-<whatever> ... and so on ... Now with kernel-source-2.4.22 the >situation has been changed...
Nonsense. As a trivial counterexample, take a look at the changelog.Debian from kernel-source-2.0.36. >Not true ;-) So called by you unmodified has all architecture-specific code >inside. Get a kernel from kernel.org or svn from bkbits.net and cd arch/ And then try to compile it on anything other than i386. For some architectures, on some kernel versions, it'll work. Most of the time, it won't. >Now you have a real nightmare with kernel-source-2.4.22 (named to bring the >upstream 2.4.22, but instead patched and that was documented of course, but >that is not the Debian way of dealing with kernels) breaking bunch of usefull >kernel-patch-<whatever>. Historical precedent is against you. That's not to say that the current situation is ideal, but statements like this don't help. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
