Hi,
Michael Banck writes:
> BTW, while we're at it: Wouldn't now be a good time to check whether
> we still need those kernel-source binary packages?
Yes we do.
> Why don't we have the vanilla[1] kernel as .orig.tar.gz, the debian
> build system as .diff.gz, and the needed patches either in the diff
> as well, or as binary packages the kernel Build-Depends on (possibly
> only for specific architectures). The kernel-images and -headers
> would then be built as binary packages from that source package.
You are tacitly assuming that all kernel-image packages are built from
a single source package. This is not the case right now, instead two
source packages are involved: the kernel-source source package creates
the arch-independent kernel-source binary package, the
kernel-{patch,image}-<arch> build-depends on it and creates the
kernel-image packages for one architecture. IMHO this two-stage
process has a number of advantages - for instance, it shortens release
and testing cycles and eliminates unnecessary load on autobuilders.
Whether all those source packages are kept in a central repository or
separately is an entirely different question
> People who want to build their own kernels should know how to run
> 'apt-get source' by now.
Assume for a moment they get Debian on CDs and don't feel like getting
the source set as well just for rebuilding the kernel? Or mirrors are
not required to carry source any more? Or they are the security team
and want to push a fix without having to fuck around with deb-src
lines?
Compared to the number and size of the kernel-image packages created
from it, a kernel-source package is tiny anyway. We can well afford
to keep it around. What we need is a way of getting rid of obsolete
kernel versions altogether.
Regards, Jens.
--
J'qbpbe, le m'en fquz pe j'qbpbe!
Le veux aimeb et mqubib panz je pézqbpbe je djuz tqtaj!
