On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:48:06PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > 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 then you won't build on any architecture unless the architecture moves to that kernel version. This has been known to take _years_. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
