On Thu, Apr 09, 1998 at 09:54:57PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > On Thu, Apr 09, 1998 at 01:09:39PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The subject in question is whether to include these packages in "stable". > > > "unstable" will include them for sure. > > > > I think they are appropriate for "stable" provided they are classifed > > as "Extra". That is what the "Extra" priority is for, after all. > > I happen to agree. And we also need a 2.1.x Kernel package. > > Brian, here in Germany, every Megabyte you have to download is costing real > money. A lot of money. Please put as much on the CD as possible. Declare it > extra, put it in an unstable dir, put warnings all over the place, but > please include it.
Why not just include a tarball of the source rather than as a debian package. Then people can't complain that Debian messed something up since they did it all by themselves. To make the kernel-source package all they would have to do is download the diff.gz and do that dpkg-source, dpkg-buildpackage thing. If we have room for the 2.1 kernel I think we should put it on since it will save people downloading about 11MB (or 9.5? for the bz2 version). Adrian email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Debian Linux - www.debian.org http://www.poboxes.com/adrian.bridgett | 2.0 release soon - over 1800 PGP key available on public key servers | packages on a stable OS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
