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.
> > >
> > >
>
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 s
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 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, 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
> > > Ups
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 clea
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 w
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 'linu
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.
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/CRED
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
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.
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
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:
>
#include
* 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
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 p
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
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
: :' : http://www.de
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
> > >fi
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,
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
co
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
>>>
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
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 wa
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 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 fo
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:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/d
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
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.
>
> T
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.
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 putativ
#include
* 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 generic)
n
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, 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 in
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 th
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 possi
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
#include
* 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
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
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.
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.
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 h
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 f
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
>nam
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:
>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 w
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 mai
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 tha
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?
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 ar
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
>>
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 ot
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, som
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
> > > > n
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 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 p
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.
[...]
> >
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
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
> > >
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 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 inexperi
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
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
#include
* 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
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
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 arg
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 s
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 f
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 prese
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 ma
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
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
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 b
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
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 sou
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
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 mo
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 o
> 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 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 explici
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 w
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 fa
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.
>
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
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
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 includ
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
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 runnin
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 pa
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 pa
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 w
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.
Since you like playing word games... what else do you get when you do
First: STOP putting my private address into the To: line. I read the
debian-devel list.
#include
* Robert Millan [Sun, Nov 09 2003, 07:17:33PM]:
> > The only more stupid thing I can imagine in this scope is uploading a
> > package called "debian" or "gnu".
>
> 1) You said before you were concer
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 05:31, martin f krafft wrote:
> System.map is used to translate addresses into function names,
> mainly for debugging and logging. But please correct me if I am
> wrong.
You forgot to mention that "ps" uses it for displaying the WCHAN, or does that
count as "debugging"?
--
h
Robert Millan wrote:
>On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 07:30:43PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> If I get a new linux package after doing apt-get ugprade which replaces
>> the one for my running kernel, then System.map and the kernel are going
>> to be out of sync until I reboot. Which would be bad.
>
>Ho
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.
--
Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them!
.''`. martin f. k
also sprach Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.11.09.2030 +0100]:
> If I get a new linux package after doing apt-get ugprade which replaces
> the one for my running kernel, then System.map and the kernel are going
> to be out of sync until I reboot. Which would be bad.
If you install a new
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 08:44:59PM +0100, John Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > "Standards" are snake oil.
> >
> > I don't expect everyone to agree that following the Debian de-facto
> > standards is a good thing.
> Sorry, disagree. _Any_ standard, including a bad one, is OK, if
> implemented vigourousl
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 07:30:43PM +, 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
> t
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 kernel, then System.map and the kernel are going
to be ou
1 - 100 of 178 matches
Mail list logo
