On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 09:21:55AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 15:08:30 +0100, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 02:29:52PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > >> > >> Hi Eduard (and cc kernel list), > >> > >> I have put together a draft for future kernel module handling, > >> based on a discussion at the kernel list and spiced up with a few > >> thoughts of my own. It is available here: > >> http://wiki.debian.org/KernelModulesPackaging > >> > >> Could you please have a look and tell me what you think (or perhaps > >> simply edit that wiki page directly)? > > > Notice that you again sided with Manoj, depite him never providing > > any arguments in favour of not using the standard upstream mandated > > build symlink, > > his is a mnischaracterization of my position, but then, I have > come to expect that. > > The upstream convention of using > /lib/modules/$(uname -r)/build > is supported, has been supported, and shall be supported by > kernel-package in the future.
Indeed, and that is the real problem here, *YOU* decide unilaterally how the kernel infrastructure shoud look, and disregard any discussion with the kernel team. I still don't get why Jonas so suddenly took of with you and told me to go fuck myself, but i still fail to see any kind of argument in what you mentioned above. > > and since both of you prefered resulting to insults instead of > > reasoned argumentations, i want to have no plan with any such plans > > as you have, so go ahead, and break everything for all i care. > > Packages built using kernel-package coherently are not > broken. Just more FUD and slander. Yeah, i will let the rest of the kernel team judge how unbroken the kernel-package stuff is right now, but then we mostly override most of it anyway. Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
