On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 03:10:26PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 01:52:44PM +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote: > > Hello Moritz, > > > > On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 13:37, Moritz Muehlenhoff <j...@debian.org> wrote: > > > The pseudo package "kernel" has been removed. It was useful in the days, > > > where Debian had about 10 different kernel source packages, but is > > > obsolete, since we now build our kernel from the source package linux-2.6. > > > > Thanks for the update. > > > > > Please remove "kernel" from reportbug. > > > > Currently we have 2 pseudo-packages for the kernel: > > > > 'kernel' : 'IMPORTANT: Obsolete, please use "linux-image" instead > > (linux-image will be used in any case)', > > 'linux-image' : 'Problems with the Linux kernel, or the kernel shipped > > with Debian', > > > > reporting against kernel, automatically is switched to report against > > linux-image. So, should we remove even linux-image (it's not in teh > > official list of pseudo-packages nowdays)? I think so, but better be > > sage than sorry :) > > I hadn't known about linux-image. I've send the BTS owners a mail to remove > this pseudo package as well, so please remove it from reportbug likewise.
According to Don Armstrong there is no linux-image pseudo package, so the special treatment in the code should indeed be removed. Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org