Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree
On Tue 31 Mar, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
> Yes. But the packages themselves aren't unstable, they are just for a
> development kernel. There is no reason to leave them behind (by the same
> logic, we should be stuck with the 2.0.33 modutils).
I still don't understand how you can have a stable package which depends
on a development kernel. If the development kernel changes the package
may have to change. Not very stable.
Yes I run a 2.1.x kernel on some machines and by making that decision
I knew what I was letting myself in for and knew the machine might be
trashed.
New users of the distribtuion just want something simple which works
so I advocate moving these packages to unstable.
>
> Bad idea. Why hinder distribution just because stuff is out there to
> support the bleeding edge of kernel development. Multi-CD distributions
> often include the 2.1.x series kernel archive, it makes no sense to force
> people to look elsewhere for utilites to support it.
>
>
I'm only thinking of people who just want the most simple and non-confusing
installs. Having lots of extra packages which depend on you downloading
or using a new kernel source mixed in with the normal stuff cannot be
good for usability.
The only hinderance would be the bleeding-edge user adds unstable to
the list of distribtuions they want to see so I don't see the problem.
Scott
--
Scott Ashcroft ashcroft@mround.bt.co.uk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: