On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 12:00:13PM +0100, Ismael Ripoll wrote: > RTLinux has two parts: 1) a patch to the Linux kernel, and 2) a set of > modules > that can be loaded in the patched kernel. > > I think that it is not wise to prepare a script to automatically apply the > patch and recompile the kernel. It is better that the developer had full > control and knowledge of what is going on. > > May be, the best way to distribute RTLinux is to distribute it jointly with > the Linux code already patched and with a single Makefile and config system > so that the user manages the while system as a single code. We are now > finishing an European Project (OCERA) and we plan to release something like > that. > > May be in the mean time it will be good to remove the package from the debian > distribution.
Vale... I can see your point. However I do disagree. I filed three bug reports dealing with three different issues. When it came to #297713 I am afraid you simply misunderstood me, but I hope the reply to that bug report made it clear what I meant. The way I see it having software in Debian (or in non-free if being pedantic) usually improves the quality on both Debian and the packaged software itself. Therefore I don't think the existence of a few bugs in the BTS is grounds enough to exclude the package from the archives. I must admit my suggestion about a shell script was silly. Never the less there exist other packages in Debian with names starting with "kernel-patch-" and an infrastructure to apply them the Debian way. Having RTLinux following the same path as them would require a bit of work, but that is work that would be worth something. As long is there is an interest of having a package in Debian it should remain there. If you're not up to dealing with the bugs and is convinced that removing the package from the archive is the thing to do, then maybe you should consider orphaning it instead or maybe post an RFA to the bug tracking system? Please see http://bugs.debian.org/95747 and http://bugs.debian.org/141181 for examples. That way either someone else step up as the maintainer, or if to long time passes and there really is no interest it will actually get removed from the archive. Thank you, And I will have a look at OCERA, it looks interesting. ¡Gracias! -- /Martin
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
