Hi! Am 2003-09-22 12:13 +0200 schrieb Bernhard R. Link: > Speaking as a user, too, I want something I can compile a kernel from. > I'm no kernel hacker and do not intend to become one. Thus I see > absolutely no reason, why I should want a debian-package with a > unmodified source-tree.
I agree. I never use Debian kernel packages anyway and even if they were unpatched, they were only of little use to _me_ (apart from problems like faster mirror/cd distributions). However, they might be useful to people using make-kpkg and patch packages to get the right dependencies and ease the download. Thus I would not vote to throw them out completely. > So your complain reduces in my eyes to an incomplete label. Partly. But it also extends to the technical level: When shipping kernel-patch packages, then Debian should have a common codebase to diff against; the straightforward choice is IMHO the pristine upstream version, shipped in a kernel package. > Escecially as an unmodified source-tree is in my experience almost > only useful for i386. I don't know much about other arches, but patching the source tree is certainly arch independent. The i386 won't help if a grsecurity patch does not apply because the source is messed up and the user does not know about it (since it _claimed_ to be the original code). Platform-specific patches should certainly go into the Debian default installation kernel, but that is a completely different issue. Have a nice day! Martin -- Martin Pitt home: www.piware.de eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]