Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 11:39:38AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 08:13:18PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
At least, the ability to do
apt-get source linux
as it should always have been.
I think it's time we put
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 06:38, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 12:23:44AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
I
for one _would_ appreciate having a debian-standard linux package.
kernel-source-*, kernel-image-*, kernel-headers-*
And truth be told, since I've been using them since
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 02:37:35PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: linux
Version : 2.4.22
Upstream Author : Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] and others, see:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/CREDITS
*
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 04:02:14PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 02:47:14PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
However,
for the matter of finding out wether there will be much people in that
userbase, there's the Popularity Contest.
Some people just never learn.
I know,
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 03:48:26PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 11:40:11PM +1100, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
There are already several forks of the Linux kernel in Debian anyway.
Robert wishes to attempt to unify them, does that not grant him use of the
name 'linux'?
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 05:14:02PM +0100, Eike Sauer wrote:
Robert Millan schrieb:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 02:17:10PM +0100, Eike Sauer wrote:
Robert Millan schrieb:
I don't see why. I have a bunch of resources to find a solution for
this trivial bug.
[...]
I didn't want to imply
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 03:29:04PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
Either satisfies the first part of my question, but at least your second
option doesn't satisfy the second part of my question. I'll repeat:
without leaving old System.map junk around for eternity
When would you clean up the
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 00:23, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 22:31, Robert Millan wrote:
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 02:37:35PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: linux
Version : 2.4.22
Upstream Author : Linus
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 22:31, Robert Millan wrote:
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 02:37:35PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: linux
Version : 2.4.22
Upstream Author : Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] and others, see:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 12:23:44AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
I
for one _would_ appreciate having a debian-standard linux package.
kernel-source-*, kernel-image-*, kernel-headers-*
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `'
On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 15:29, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 05:08:16AM +0100, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 07:17:13PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:43:09PM +0100, Robert
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 01:35:29PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
I'm so scared. wchan won't be displayable!
What were you saying about sarcasm? The fact remains that it's a bug,
You're going outside the scope of the question. Someone argued the way
System.map is upgraded is a dessign
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 02:23:52PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 12:03:38PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 08:33:00PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
klogd will be unable to look up symbols, and ps and top need it for
wchan to be displayable.
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 14:28, Isaac To wrote:
Unless one patch the kernel to support all the things like .pid files in
/proc, futex, O(1) scheduler, ... (i.e., as in the 2.4 kernel of
Redhat).
I have been seriously considering a kernel-patch-2.4-redhat package which
contains a patch with
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 07:50:54PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 11:58:46AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 10:43:49PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
1) You said before you were concerned about my package occupiing the
package
namespace in
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 04:34:16PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
Thanks for addressing this. Well, it is in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - instead of answering what
actually justifies that name, there is only another subset of {look in
the first proposal|look at Herbert agreeing (vague)|there are others
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 07:57:12AM -0800, A.J. Rossini wrote:
Why does the lack of response from Herbert prove that this package is a bad
idea? I'm saddened that you have to revert to intimidation in place of a
technical argument.
Herbert did respond with a single message, somewhat
This one time, at band camp, A.J. Rossini wrote:
Jamie Wilkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This one time, at band camp, Eduard Bloch wrote:
You repeat this again and again and got answers from me and others to
such an ultimate argument. But did you ask yourself why Herbert does not
participiate
This one time, at band camp, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 11:58:46AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 10:43:49PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
1) You said before you were concerned about my package occupiing the
package
namespace in the archive. The
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 10:32:11AM -0500, Lukas Geyer wrote:
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
apt-get source kernel-image-* doesn't bring me the real source. Instead, if
I want the real source I must be root and install a binary package. Do you
deny that this is confusing?
I
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 08:31:39AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
But you haven't responded to any of the *legitimate* arguments, except
to say they're bogus, and that you solve them by ignoring them.
That implies all my responses merely claim they're bogus. It's very easy
to pretend that, but
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 07:25:41PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 08:17:58PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
- I'm not trying to make a package, the package is already made and it
works
fine. I'm using it right now.
Okay, please don't write software or maintain
This one time, at band camp, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 08:33:00PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
klogd will be unable to look up symbols, and ps and top need it for
wchan to be displayable.
I'm so scared. wchan won't be displayable!
What were you saying
This one time, at band camp, Robert Millan wrote:
Place the package files in /usr/lib, and copy them conditionaly (debconf)
into /boot. The debconf question would properly explain that if per chooses
to update it, then the system must be rebooted promptly.
Another option:
Place the
This one time, at band camp, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
I do not expect Robert's package to make any more of an attempt to convince
you a reboot is required than any of the other kernel packages.
The current kernel packages include the version number in the package
name,
This one time, at band camp, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
How do the current kernel packages guarantee this?
Why would Robert's package need to behave any differently?
The current kernel packages don't make the old stuff just dissappear,
so it's less of an issue in that case. In fact, the
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 09:29:58AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Robert Millan writes:
And even if it was, I claimed my packages has some advantages, but didn't
claim it doesn't have any disadvantages.
Please explain why the putative advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
I don't have to
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 09:41:53AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
In what way is updating between releases worse than updating within the
same release?
It is worse because a lot more code changes. I am sure that you have
enough packaging (and Debian user) experience to recognize that. I am
This one time, at band camp, Robert Millan wrote:
being presented with.
I'd really LOVE to. But this is my discussion. If I don't take part in it,
who will respond to all these bogus arguments some people enjoy sending in?
Rather, this is you and the other trolls who are wasting my time.
What
Robert Millan schrieb:
I don't see why. I have a bunch of resources to find a solution for this
trivial bug.
You are implying the other DDs are your ressource for finding
what you are calling trivial bugs. They are not. It's your
duty to think of most of it beforehand.
If you didn't want to
#include hallo.h
* Robert Millan [Tue, Nov 11 2003, 12:21:32PM]:
(This is exactly the same question as Matthew asked, of course; but it
is an important question relative to this ITP and I want to see it
answered.)
I don't like turning this ITP into a technical discussion to prove either
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 11:26:43AM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
apt-get source kernel-image-* doesn't bring me the real source.
Instead, if I want the real source I must be root and install a
binary package. Do you deny that this is confusing?
Non-intuitive? Yes, I grant you
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 07:34:23PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 12:57:02PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
But the real results are shown through Popularity Contest [1] when my
package
reaches unstable. So keep your arguments on this for later.
That is possibly the
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 02:29:48PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 12:57:02PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 07:47:37PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
Look, if you want to waste time, waste _yours_. OTOH, if you want to
take part in the
Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
Kernels install /boot/System.map-$version. There's a symlink from
/boot/System.map to the current version.
And Robert's proposal currently results in the System.map-$version for
my current kernel vanishing, along with my modules.
You are told you need to reboot after
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 11:59:32PM +1100, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Robert Millan wrote:
Place the package files in /usr/lib, and copy them conditionaly (debconf)
into /boot. The debconf question would properly explain that if per chooses
to update it, then the
#include hallo.h
* Jamie Wilkinson [Tue, Nov 11 2003, 11:40:11PM]:
There are already several forks of the Linux kernel in Debian anyway.
Robert wishes to attempt to unify them, does that not grant him use of the
name 'linux'?
Bug nobody was bold enough to take exactly this (as said very
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 09:29:58AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Robert Millan writes:
And even if it was, I claimed my packages has some advantages, but didn't
claim it doesn't have any disadvantages.
Please explain why the putative advantages
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 02:17:10PM +0100, Eike Sauer wrote:
Robert Millan schrieb:
I don't see why. I have a bunch of resources to find a solution for this
trivial bug.
You are implying the other DDs are your ressource for finding
what you are calling trivial bugs. They are not. It's your
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 12:13:42AM +1100, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
I've had another thought, which was spurred by the System.map discussion;
and some people are probably going to hate it because it duplicates some of
the effort of having a package management system in the first place.
The
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 09:29:58AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
[...]
5) How will you handle architectures where the current upstream kernel
is not based on the same version as your package? The main suggestion
I see is that they'd have to use the current
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 12:19:33AM +1100, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
What I'd really like to see is some packages uploaded to your home on gluck,
because this thread isn't advancing *anyones* arguments.
I did that a few days before sending the ITP:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 02:29:13PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
I don't like turning this ITP into a technical discussion to prove either
my dessign is consistent or I'm capable as a maintainer. However I'll
respond
to your question this time:
Why could you not just wait for the
What is so damn hard about respecting a Mail-Followup-To: header?
On 11-Nov-03, 06:24 (CST), Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I didn't claim all of them are trolling. But a few of them are. Also IIRC I
haven't put in question their experience as developers.
Your reply to Marcello:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 12:21:32PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
or who pretend the dessign of my package is broken in a way that I
can't solve such trivial bugs.
Look, you see whatever you want to see, but you are still missing the
forest for the trees. When I mentioned System.map this was
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 12:21:32PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 02:23:52PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
As a prospective maintainer of an important package, it ill behooves
you to make fun of legitimate bug reports.
No, you're confused. I don't blame you because you
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 23:54:38 +1100, Jamie Wilkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
This one time, at band camp, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 08:33:00PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
klogd will be unable to look up symbols, and ps and top need it
for wchan to
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 11:40:11PM +1100, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
There are already several forks of the Linux kernel in Debian anyway.
Robert wishes to attempt to unify them, does that not grant him use of the
name 'linux'?
No he doesn't. He wants to create a new arbitrary patch set, in a
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 12:21:32PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
How do you propose to do that without changing the package name, and
without leaving old System.map junk around for eternity? I don't see how
it can be possible.
(This is exactly the same question as Matthew asked, of
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 12:45:31PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 07:25:41PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 08:17:58PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
- I'm not trying to make a package, the package is already made and it
works
fine. I'm
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 02:47:14PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
However,
for the matter of finding out wether there will be much people in that
userbase, there's the Popularity Contest.
Some people just never learn.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' :
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 03:10:14PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
The question was: How do you provide 2.4.x for architecture blah and
2.4.y for architecture foo, which are two versions of the same
upstream branch.
just to give you a better idea of what we are talking about here, these
Robert Millan schrieb:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 02:17:10PM +0100, Eike Sauer wrote:
Robert Millan schrieb:
I don't see why. I have a bunch of resources to find a solution for
this trivial bug.
[...]
I didn't want to imply that. I was referring to general packaging
resources like preinst
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 05:21:57PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 15:29, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 05:08:16AM +0100, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 07:17:13PM -0800, Mike
#include hallo.h
* Robert Millan [Tue, Nov 11 2003, 02:47:14PM]:
apt-get source kernel-image-* doesn't bring me the real source.
Instead, if I want the real source I must be root and install a
binary package. Do you deny that this is confusing?
Non-intuitive? Yes, I grant you
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 12:19:33AM +1100, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
What I'd really like to see is some packages uploaded to your home
on gluck, because this thread isn't advancing *anyones* arguments.
I did that a few days before sending the ITP:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 02:29:48PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
Why not call it linux-experimental or linux-rmh or similar then? I'm
sure a lot of people would be much happier with your proposal if it
didn't claim the important namespace of linux, which implies that it
is the preferred kernel
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 10:19:39PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 07:17:13PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:43:09PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
And Nikita just pointed out there's libc6-i686. It might make sense to add
linux-i686 too. I'm open
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 12:13:19PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 10:19:39PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 07:17:13PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:43:09PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
And Nikita just pointed out there's
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 03:29:06PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
It could. I decided that building four was excessive and having
the act of installing libc6-i686 act to disable NPTL would be a little
bit too strange.
Can you clue me in as to why the non-optimized libc6 package will work
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 12:54:18PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 03:29:06PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
It could. I decided that building four was excessive and having
the act of installing libc6-i686 act to disable NPTL would be a little
bit too strange.
Can you
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
and dpkg doesn't support
installing source packages, so tracking this source has to be done by
hand.
There is apt-src, however.
Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
Package: kernel-image-2.4.23-1-i386
Version: 2.4.23-1
/boot/vmlinuz-2.4.23
/boot/System.map-2.4.23
/lib/modules/2.4.23/...
[ Here I'll just state that I don't know if the -1- bit in the package
name modifies the kernel version in any way
also sprach Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003.11.09.2216 +0100]:
You forgot to mention that ps uses it for displaying the WCHAN,
or does that count as debugging?
no, probably not. but is it a vital function? not having System.map
will still let you use the system.
But don't get me wrong, I
This one time, at band camp, Eduard Bloch wrote:
The fact of the too generic package name was mentioned before within
other arguments against your linux package. IIRC you prefered not to
answer to it but refered to an URL which did not contain the answers.
'linux' is a perfect name for the
This one time, at band camp, Eduard Bloch wrote:
You repeat this again and again and got answers from me and others to
such an ultimate argument. But did you ask yourself why Herbert does not
participiate this discussion to help you?
Why does the lack of response from Herbert prove that this
This one time, at band camp, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Robert Millan wrote:
But someone claimed there are critical problems with System.map in the way
my package is upgraded, which is not the case.
If I get a new linux package after doing apt-get ugprade which replaces
the one for my running
This one time, at band camp, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
* A package which requires a reboot on updates
Oh, now I'm suposed to fix that, too? Bitch upstream for a run-time
updatable Linux kernel.
ROTFL
That's not the point, I thought that was obvious, sorry. The point is
how do
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 02:50:33PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Sure. My users are those who like the advantages described in:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200311/msg00414.html
[...]
This *IMHO* does not include a reason
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 09:27:04PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003.11.09.2118 +0100]:
Anyway, discussing this is not useful anymore. I just said I'll
provide it in the package.
That won't do. Read Matthew's post carefully.
I read all posts
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 06:59:44PM +1100, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
I do not expect Robert's package to make any more of an attempt to convince
you a reboot is required than any of the other kernel packages.
I quote from the postinst generated by kernel-package:
I repeat: you have to
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 09:52:34AM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
This *IMHO* does not include a reason good enough to justify a 30MB
source-package + resulting binary packages.
Why not?
There is no equivalent amount of added value to the bound resources.
Yes, there is.
[EMAIL
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 10:43:49PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
1) You said before you were concerned about my package occupiing the package
namespace in the archive. The fact that you don't like the name of my
package
proves your previous argument was intentionaly bogus.
The fact of the
Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
I do not expect Robert's package to make any more of an attempt to convince
you a reboot is required than any of the other kernel packages.
The current kernel packages include the version number in the package
name, whereas Robert seems to be suggesting that his package
also sprach Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003.11.10.1204 +0100]:
That won't do. Read Matthew's post carefully.
I read all posts (or at least, attempt to). So please don't send redundant
messages, they add more confusion.
... says the one who's ignoring Mail-Followup-To and explicit
How do the current kernel packages guarantee this?
Why would Robert's package need to behave any differently?
The current kernel packages don't make the old stuff just dissappear,
so it's less of an issue in that case. In fact, the only bad
situation with the current kernel packages is
Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 10:43:49PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
The fact of the too generic package name was mentioned before within
other arguments against your linux package.
How many software programs called linux are around?
When people refer to linux, they often mean
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 12:55:21PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003.11.10.1204 +0100]:
That won't do. Read Matthew's post carefully.
I read all posts (or at least, attempt to). So please don't send redundant
messages, they add more
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 08:33:00PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Robert Millan wrote:
How bad? I'm happily running the Linux kernel without System.map right now.
klogd will be unable to look up symbols, and ps and top need it for
wchan to be displayable.
I'm so scared. wchan won't be
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 07:47:37PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 02:40:11PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
The packaging method is the whole point. And indeed, some people like
the ability to do standard things like apt-get source foo and get
foo's sources.
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 11:38:38AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
I do not expect Robert's package to make any more of an attempt to convince
you a reboot is required than any of the other kernel packages.
The current kernel packages include the version number in the
Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 08:33:00PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
klogd will be unable to look up symbols, and ps and top need it for
wchan to be displayable.
I'm so scared. wchan won't be displayable!
What were you saying about sarcasm? The fact remains that it's a bug,
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 06:44:55AM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
How do the current kernel packages guarantee this?
Why would Robert's package need to behave any differently?
The current kernel packages don't make the old stuff just dissappear,
so it's less of an issue in that
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 12:42:48PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
How many software programs called linux are around?
When people refer to linux, they often mean the entire OS.
Yes. And when I refer to something, I just mean something.
IIRC you prefered not to
answer to it but refered
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 12:03:38PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 08:33:00PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
klogd will be unable to look up symbols, and ps and top need it for
wchan to be displayable.
I'm so scared. wchan won't be displayable!
As a prospective
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 12:57:02PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 07:47:37PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
Look, if you want to waste time, waste _yours_. OTOH, if you want to
take part in the discussion, do bother to address the issues you are
being presented
Robert Millan writes:
And even if it was, I claimed my packages has some advantages, but didn't
claim it doesn't have any disadvantages.
Please explain why the putative advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
1) I haven't built a 2.4 kernel lately, but in linux-2.6, selecting
some mandatory
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 06:44:55AM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
How do the current kernel packages guarantee this?
Why would Robert's package need to behave any differently?
The current kernel packages don't make the old stuff just
I *know* I'm going to regret this...
On 10-Nov-03, 05:57 (CST), Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 07:47:37PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
I'd really LOVE to. But this is my discussion. If I don't take part in it,
who will respond to all these bogus
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
apt-get source kernel-image-* doesn't bring me the real source. Instead, if
I want the real source I must be root and install a binary package. Do you
deny that this is confusing?
I don't understand why you must be root, could you elaborate? I am no
#include hallo.h
* Matthew Garrett [Mon, Nov 10 2003, 12:42:48PM]:
IIRC you prefered not to
answer to it but refered to an URL which did not contain the answers.
I don't recall seeing this question before. So unless you provide a link to
that, you're liing.
Technically, no - even if he
Jamie Wilkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This one time, at band camp, Eduard Bloch wrote:
You repeat this again and again and got answers from me and others to
such an ultimate argument. But did you ask yourself why Herbert does not
participiate this discussion to help you?
Why does the lack
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 12:57:02PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
Since you like playing word games... what else do you get when you
do apt-get source kernel-image-2.4.22-1-k7 if not
kernel-image-2.4.22-1-k7's source package?
Do you want the Linux Kernel sources with all the
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 08:17:58PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
- I'm not trying to make a package, the package is already made and it works
fine. I'm using it right now.
Okay, please don't write software or maintain any packages.
I can't think of anything more indicative of total
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 12:57:02PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
But the real results are shown through Popularity Contest [1] when my package
reaches unstable. So keep your arguments on this for later.
That is possibly the stupidest thing I have seen all week.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 11:58:46AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 10:43:49PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
1) You said before you were concerned about my package occupiing the
package
namespace in the archive. The fact that you don't like the name of my
package
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 14:29:48 + Colin Watson wrote:
The lurkers support me in email
They all think I'm great don't you know.
You posters just don't understand me
But soon you will reap what you sow.
Lurkers, lurkers, lurkers support me, you'll see, you'll see
off in e-mail
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 10:20:42PM +, Carlos Sousa wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 14:29:48 + Colin Watson wrote:
The lurkers support me in email
They all think I'm great don't you know.
You posters just don't understand me
But soon you will reap what you sow.
[...]
(credit
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:43:09PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
And Nikita just pointed out there's libc6-i686. It might make sense to add
linux-i686 too. I'm open for discussing that, but this discussion doesn't
belong on the ITP bug.
And why is it only for 2.6 kernels? The processor specific
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 07:17:13PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:43:09PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
And Nikita just pointed out there's libc6-i686. It might make sense to add
linux-i686 too. I'm open for discussing that, but this discussion doesn't
belong on the ITP
1 - 100 of 192 matches
Mail list logo
