On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:00:26PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > You have not obsoleted any of the kernel patch packages.
It's not my intention to obsolete anything, but whenever I have to add my own patches they will be in debian/patches directory where people expect them to be, not in a separate binary. You're getting out of the point, though. The confusion I explained would still remain without the "kernel-patch-*" packages. > Have you perhaps noticed that the kernels from every architecture build > from different source packages? Why don't you spend a little time > working out why this is so, what the issues are with trying to do it > from one package, and why we don't do that already? I haven't noticed, so thanks for pointing this out. The fix is trivial, btw. > > Glibc: > > #215010: Illegal instruction with 2.2 kernel > > > > This is not unusual. IIRC, Woody's Glibc wasn't supported by Linux 2.0 (I > > once tried an upgrade from Slink after the Woody release) > > I fail to see how a bug in the 2.2 kernel, triggered by a recent glibc > update, dictates anything at all. A substantial portion of Debian > users won't run the kernel we supply anyway, no matter how we choose to > supply it. Indeed. And the point is: a small portion will run my package and will be safe from hitting this sort of bugs. -- Robert Millan "[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work." -- J.R.R.T, Ainulindale (Silmarillion)
