Jens Schmalzing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, > > Sven Luther writes: > >> Could this not be solved by simply making the kernel-source >> kernel-tree kernel-patch-debian dependency strict ? > > This is equivalent to dropping kernel-tree and kernel-patch-debian > altogether.
kernel-tree-2.x.y-z should build exactly the source used for the kernel-image 2.x.y-z and never anything else. A kernel-tree-2.x.y package should build the latest z and kernel-tree-2.x the latest y-z versions. That way users can "apt-get install kernel-tree-2.x" to get the newest kernel source or "apt-get install kernel-tree-2.x.y-z" to get (and keep) a specific one. Kernel patches and modules can then depend on the kernel-tree as closely as they need and restrict the version if they need a minimum revision. I don't see where such a strict Depends would reduce usefullness. >> After all, there is almost zero chance to have the patches in >> separate states, since they are built from the same package. > > In the archive, yes. But a user may choose to put a new kernel-source > package on hold once it's installed and upgrade to further revisions > using kernel-tree, saving a hell of a lot of download volume. The newer kernel-tree should require the nerwer sources. If he doesn't want newer sources he has to set the old kernel-tree on hold. People who install kernel-tree-2.6 should be prepared for lots of downloads of new debian patches and new upstream sources. > Regards, Jens. > > -- > J'qbpbe, le m'en fquz pe j'qbpbe! > Le veux aimeb et mqubib panz je pézqbpbe je djuz tqtaj!
