On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 10:11:34PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Sun, 23 May 2004 20:57:01 +0200, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 07:38:01PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > >> Well, if I have a collections of patches and want to build a > >> kernel-source package make-kpkg kernel_source sounds like the right > >> tool to archive that, no? > > > BTW, while we're at it: Wouldn't now be a good time to check whether > > we still need those kernel-source binary packages? That sounds soooo > > 90s. > > There are a lot of people, especially in places like india, > who have access to binary CD's, but not to downloading the sources > over dial up. > > > 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. People who want to build their own kernels should know how > > to run 'apt-get source' by now. > > There is something to be said about giving people the ability > to build kernel images from vanilla sources, from strange kernel > source lines, and so on -- and have these be the same quality as > packaged kernels.
BTW, Manoj, what is your thought on debconfifing the pre/post/inst/rm script, this would be usefull for not having d-i bomb on the minor glitch concerning those trying to ask questions or something. Friendly, Sven Luther
