Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Problems of this approach, off the top of my head: > > a. Having a binary package of the same name that is produced by > different source packages on different architectures may or may not > drive the archive maintainence scripts nuts. On the other hand, > it uses no more space in the archive than our kernel sources use > today.
We already have that today. The generic kernel headers package is provided by different source packages on different architectures. > b. If kernel-source-2.4.22 produces a "linux" package, then when 2.4.23 > comes out, kernel-source-2.4.22 has to either be removed from the > archive, or revved to stop providing the linux package before > kernel-source-2.4.23 can begin to do so. It's not a problem since this situation is identical to that of the kernel-image-2.4-<foo> packages which never had any troubles. -- Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ ) Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt