> It's not "cosmetic". The point is it has a completely different > packaging style and philosophy. I want to package the Linux kernel in > the same way the rest of Debian is packaged, that's all.
Until now you have failed to provide a reason for that, other than cosmetic reasons. Please _define_ your target user base, and do make an effort to be more verbose than just "new linux user" becuase that's becoming a mythical hydra. GNOME's ill-defined "newbie" can't be your "newbie". Your newbie is downloading patches for the _kernel_, _reconfiguring_ it and _compiling_ it. If your newbie is able to do that, he can just go read kernel-package's documentation, too, so your target userbase has to be special in a way that I just haven't seen. > If you have more ideas that improve my packages in that field > _without_ breaking its current packaging style and philosophy (which > is the whole point), they're welcome as I said. _That_ is the point of your packaging: you don't like the current packaging for whatever reason and want a different one. I hope you don't mind Mesa's packaging, because I'd be rather pissed if suddenly someone comes with the great idea of creating mesa-cdbs just for the sake of it. If someone wants to work on such a thing I won't stop them. If they send patches I'll look at them. But it will take a good deal of talking to convince me that that _per se_ is better. > As I said a thousand times, if an architecture is unsupportable, not > supporting it is an option. So, your package _can't_ be the default kernel package, because that needs to be supported on all architectures the installer supports. Which makes me wonder again: what is your target userbase? -- Marcelo
