On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:35:52PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > > I haven't noticed, so thanks for pointing this out. The fix is trivial, btw. > > If you think that, then you don't understand why they are all built > separately.
I don't need to understand that. > They all require different patches. > > They all require different kernel versions, in general. > > They all require different binaries to be shipped and different tools > to be used to build them. Are you suggesting I can't deal with trivial packaging issues like that? I know how Build-Depends work. I also know how to apply patches conditionaly. > And suggesting autobuilding kernels for an architecture other than the > one the maintainer tests them on seems like an extremely bad idea. Why? Don't we autobuild Glibc? Do you think the Glibc maintainers don't test their packages properly for non-i386? (Yes, I know you're one of them.) -- 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)