Hi,
>>"Paul" == Paul Wade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Paul> Maybe the role of policy is primarily oriented towards
Paul> delivering a stable base system and maybe that doesn't apply
Paul> any more when you start modifying things and building things on
Paul> your own.
Your machine, you
Hi,
>>"Paul" == Paul Wade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Paul> Recently I built the latest X for slink and did so by installing
Paul> kernel-headers (2.2.12) and the "legacy" symlinks for
Paul> /usr/include/(asm,linux). Seems X needed some constants for support of
Paul> newer hardware.
On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 27, 1999 at 11:10:33AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Does adhering to a policy diminish the usefulness of the system? This
> > should always be seriously considered.
>
> Not when policy is aiding in stability.
I basically agree. What we
On Wed, Oct 27, 1999 at 11:10:33AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Does adhering to a policy diminish the usefulness of the system? This
> should always be seriously considered.
Not when policy is aiding in stability.
Ben
--+
On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Joel Klecker wrote:
> Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 22:54:17 -0700
> From: Joel Klecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: debian-glibc@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Bug#43928: libc and kernel source policy
> Resent-Date: Wed, 2
This should certainly be discussed with the libc maintainers before
making such a proposal. I am sure that they did not take the decision
lightly.
<<
The kernel headers don't change much these days on stable releases, yet
the Debian libc packages continue to carry with them full sets of kernel
On Tue, Oct 26, 1999 at 10:21:21AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> is actually nothing wrong with this policy. Personally, I would hope that
> it always stays this way.
Ditto.
> For the non-i386 archs, it makes for much less
> bug reports, and more stable/consistent builds.
FWIW, stability and cons
On Tue, Oct 26, 1999 at 09:40:57AM -0600, Erik Andersen wrote:
> On Tue Oct 26, 1999 at 10:21:21AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps the real argument should be, to have something that allows the
> > users to specify their own headers without libc-dev overwriting them.
> >
>
> That was i
On Tue Oct 26, 1999 at 10:21:21AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> Perhaps the real argument should be, to have something that allows the
> users to specify their own headers without libc-dev overwriting them.
>
That was indeed the problem that caused my concern. When I am hacking
on the kernel an
On Tue, Oct 26, 1999 at 12:45:20PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> This should certainly be discussed with the libc maintainers before
> making such a proposal. I am sure that they did not take the decision
> lightly.
>
> > I wish to change Debian policy regarding libc and the kernel sources.
> > T
This should certainly be discussed with the libc maintainers before
making such a proposal. I am sure that they did not take the decision
lightly.
> I wish to change Debian policy regarding libc and the kernel sources.
> The document /usr/share/doc/libc6/FAQ.Debian.gz states:
>
> Occasionall
11 matches
Mail list logo
