On Mon, Jan 05, 1998 at 05:48:27PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote: > I never understood why the kernel source was made into a .deb package. It
Because it's something we expect people will want to recompile, so we should make it readily available to them. > doesn't make sense to me. I also don't see any point in "managing" a > binary package of the kernel either. The system doesn't gain anything by > having dpkg know which kernel binaries are installed either. The binary > thus installed still needs to be configured for lilo or loadlin or grub, > so what's the point? I think it does gain something; it is much easier to have multiple versions around. If I compile a new 2.1 kernel and find that it is not too good (like 2.1.76 seems to have broken sound for me so I went back to 2.1.72), I can just reinstall the old one with dpkg. I don't need to edit my lilo config, play with symlinks in / etc. hamish -- Hamish Moffatt, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5 CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
