[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dale Scheetz) wrote on 05.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> > I think that /usr/src should the be domain of the local admin.
> >
> > I don't think kernel-{header,source}-x.xx.deb should exist, really,
> > because I don't think source code should be distributed as .deb files
> > anyway. So I'm not unhappy about making a policy decision that leaves
> > kernel-{header,source} with nowhere good to go.
>
> I never understood why the kernel source was made into a .deb package. It
> doesn't make sense to me. I also don't see any point in "managing" a
> binary package of the kernel either. The system doesn't gain anything by
> having dpkg know which kernel binaries are installed either. The binary
> thus installed still needs to be configured for lilo or loadlin or grub,
> so what's the point?
Well, handling kernels with kernel-package is _a_lot_ easier than doing it
by hand. I've done both, and I don't want to go back, ever.
> > Why does libc6 depend on kernel-header ?
>
> I don't know either, but it is on the top of my list of things I need to
> understand as the new maintainer. It was my understanding that the way we
> deal with kernel headers was supposed to free the c library from the
> headers. I don't know that anything has changed in that reguard. I'll let
> you know what I find asap.
I think our main problem here is that people (including both you and Ian)
don't keep on top of debian-private and debian-devel. I can't count the
times this has been explained already, and I get very, very tired of it.
libc6 depends on a specific version of kernel-headers to avoid including
what is in that package as a diff. Nothing more, nothing less.
MfG Kai
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
