On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 04:22:27PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:18:37PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > > > If you think that, then you don't understand why they are all built > > > separately. > > > > I don't need to understand that. > > You don't need to understand the problem that prompted our existing > kernel packages in order to create a new one that "just works"? > Really?
No. You're putting words in my mouth. I don't need to understand why the patches can't be merged in order to apply the corresponding patch for each architecture. As I said, it's a trivial packaging issue. > > Are you suggesting I can't deal with trivial packaging issues like that? I > > know how Build-Depends work. I also know how to apply patches conditionaly. > > Then how do you suggest maintaining a kernel 2.4.20 for one > architecture and a 2.4.22 for another architecture, when you can't even > test on either of them? I wouldn't. I'm going to track the latest minor version, just like the rest of Debian packages do. > And how do you expect to ever upgrade the > result without duplicating all the work done by all the existing kernel > package maintainers for all Debian architectures? Build-Depends: [...], kernel-patch-2.4.22-powerpc [powerpc], [...] > This doesn't even make any sense. Might as well just set Architecture: > i386. Do you have any other point, asides of pretending I'm incompetent at packaging? -- 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)
