In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: I'm remarkably unopinionated about how we package sources, except that I'm pretty happy with dpkg-source and so it seems reasonable to me to tweak the things that need tweaking in dpkg-source, rather than do something radically different.
However, you hit one of my "hot buttons": : 2) Linux kernels & patches : We already distribute the kernel sources in a Debian package (just : as I proposed doing for all sources). Yep, we do. And it's one of the few quasi-technical details about Debian that I *really* dislike. I never use these kernel sources, and I school everyone I help to install Debian on how to acquire pristine kernel sources and build their own kernel binary packages with the excellant kernel-package toolset. I think it is *much* easier to track kernel developments and/or install kernel patches from the real world this way... Obviously, others think the kernel source .deb files are useful, so I don't actively oppose their inclusion... but I sure wouldn't use this as an example of something we do that's so wonderful that we should emulate it elsewhere... Actually, we'd probably do a bunch of our users a favor if we used the process of unpacking kernel sources and regenerating a kernel as a trigger event to explain/demonstrate to them how to use dpkg-source to unpack a source tree. It's amazingly simple, and would give them a leg-up on recompiling things if/when they felt some need to do so for other reasons. Bdale
