Le May 12, 2008 09:39:25 am Lennart Sorensen, vous avez écrit : > On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 03:39:15PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote: > > Yes, the problems with conglomeration packages are the same as you'd get > > by merging 2 somewhat related source packages together, say iceweasel > > with icedove. Although the source packages would probably share a bit of > > code, if there's a libpng transition and only iceweasel is ready, you > > need to drop icedove, but your only choices are to drop icedove and > > iceweasel or re-upload with a disabled icedove. Transitions get longer > > and/or versions are bumped constantly. For example, > > linux-modules-extra-2.6 was uploaded 7 times to unstable in 2008, while > > iceweasel was only uploaded 5 times. > > linux-modules-extra-2.6 only did one Linux ABI transition during that > > time. If nvidia prebuilt modules are merged in linux-modules-nonfree-2.6, > > they'll be tied to kqemu prebuilt modules. This would hurt both nvidia > > LKM-s and kqemu LKM-s, which are already in bad enough shape. > > linux-modules-extra-2.6 was uploaded many times since more and more > modules were getting added to its list to build. Well, yes, that's a bit what I wrote.
> It is only changed when new module packages should be supported by it, > and when a new kernel comes out so that it can explicitly build modules > for that new kernel. No, a more frequent change is disabling/enabling modules [on some arch]. Even if you were right, adding new module packages doesn't "justify" updating other modules. Reusing the ice* example, suppose that Debian would have such an icezoo source package and Mozilla would release a new IRC client. Adding, say, icebear, to the packages generated by icezoo wouldn't make me happy, because I'd have to update iceweasel even if I wouldn't use icebear. Otherwise, I wouldn't like iceweasel updates to be blocked just because icebear has a serious regression. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
