| 1 |
On Thursday 24 July 2003 15:07, Matt Rickard wrote: |
| 2 |
> > I fully support the opinions stated above, and I simply cannot |
| 3 |
> > comprehend what the big deal with ~arch masking vanilla-sources is. |
| 4 |
> > Even *considering* the option of a separate package is ridiculous. As |
| 5 |
> > long as developers are careful enough to not remove the ~arch mask |
| 6 |
> > from any _pre kernel, I am perfectly fine, and I believe there |
| 7 |
> > wouldn't be anyone who isn't fine. What are we trying to do-- make |
| 8 |
> > sure people who insist on running the *unstable* profile actually |
| 9 |
> > don't get the "unstable" sources. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Well the fact is that an unstable kernel can be a whole lot more |
| 12 |
> problematic than an unstable userland package. With userland, if it |
| 13 |
> crashes, oh well, you can start it up again. With an unstable kernel |
| 14 |
> you run the risk of hard locks and corrupted filesystems. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
As far as I know we don't actually compile any kernel automatically. That |
| 17 |
means that it still requires user action to actually install a prekernel. |
| 18 |
That means that a user must actually decide on running a prekernel |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Paul |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 24 |
Researcher |
| 25 |
Mail: pauldv@××××××.nl |
| 26 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives