On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 12:30:45AM +0200, Oliver Kurth wrote: > On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 10:08:57PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > > also sprach Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.09.22.1109 +0200]: > > > Well, what you seem to want is to have the kernel source avaliable > > > in a format that makes packaging kernel patches easy. That seems > > > like a different issue to me.
> > No, this is the issue. I want the kernel sources to be what they > > promise, and not what Herbert wants them to be. I can opt-in on have > > the bells and whistles Herbert thinks should belong in every > > kernel-image, but if I don't make that choice, I want to have the > > kernel-source with just the security fixes. After all, Debian is > > known for two things: purity and security. I don't see the first one > > applying to kernel-source, and given that IPsec is in beta state, > > I don't see the second either. > I agree with Martin. If patches in the base package make additional > kernel patch packages impossible, they should not be applied. Users > should have the choice which patches they want to apply. As stated above, this is not a reasonable restriction. An arbitrary kernel patch package might conflict with *any* changes made to the kernel-source package, including simple security fixes. The kernel-source maintainer must have some flexibility to maintain his packages in the manner he believes best meets their primary purpose, which AIUI is to provide a suitable base from which to build kernel-image packages to be distributed in Debian. The burden is on the kernel patch maintainer to provide something which works with the packages it depends on. If this is achieved by *persuading* the kernel source maintainer to revert a given patch, so much the better; but there's one kernel source maintainer and n kernel patch maintainers -- it's clear which end rightly bears the responsibility of making those n packages work. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
pgphJ3HJcFE2F.pgp
Description: PGP signature
