Subject: Re: kernel-source and kernel-headers packages

From: Ian Jackson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 96 02:17 BST

Brian Mays writes ("Re: kernel-source and kernel-headers packages"):
> Ian Jackson <[email-masked]> writes:
> > Can't these be retired ?
...
> > Why not just ship the (debianised, obviously) source to the
> > kernels we ship as .tar.gz and .diff.gz, just like any other
> > binary package ?
> 
> Here is one thing to consider.  The kernel-source .deb file includes
> processing scripts to keep track of installed versions of the kernel
> source (when several different versions of the kernel source have been
> installed) and points the /usr/src/linux symlink to an apropriate
> kernel source directory.  A simple .tar.gz file cannot do this.

The /usr/src/linux symlink is no longer necessary for anything very
much, and in any case it seems to me that having the
most-recently-unpacked thing alway set this link to itself is bad.

But really the main problem is that a .deb package is a stunningly bad
way of distributing source code - it's exactly the kind of thing that
dpkg (and indeed almost any package management scheme for binary
packages) will have huge trouble with, because people will always be
editing it, compiling it, rm -rf'ing it, &c.

Ian.

---

From: Manoj Srivastava <[email-masked]>
Date: 30 Jun 1996 23:45:57 -0400

>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[email-masked]> writes:

Ian> The /usr/src/linux symlink is no longer necessary for anything
Ian> very much, and in any case it seems to me that having the
Ian> most-recently-unpacked thing alway set this link to itself is
Ian> bad.

	Umm, I could not think of another scheme that was better ;-),
 and I think it works for most people most of the time.

Ian> But really the main problem is that a .deb package is a
Ian> stunningly bad way of distributing source code - it's exactly the
Ian> kind of thing that dpkg (and indeed almost any package management
Ian> scheme for binary packages) will have huge trouble with, because
Ian> people will always be editing it, compiling it, rm -rf'ing it,
Ian> &c.

	Well, yes, but .deb packages are how we distribute packaged
 products to the debian users (most methods of delivering such
 products to the end-user are focussed on .deb format (dftp, dpkg-ftp,
 and cdrom distributors)), so if Debian is to provide the sources, it
 should be in this form (I dislike to think that there is a special
 case made for the kernel sources).

	  I think that there is a demand for kernel sources, and that
  we should satisfy this need, if only for completeness. Also, though
  there are not now, but there may be, in the future, packages that
  really depend on the kernel sources; and the .deb file defines a
  standard place to find kernel sources on a Debian system

	Methinks, Ian, you underestimate your creation, dpkg handles
 the sources well enough in most of the cases.  So far, I have no
 complaint about dpkg's handling of the sources, indeed, people savvy
 enough to edit kernel sources are usually savvy enough to understand
 why dpkg is complaining about extra files while deleting the source
 package (indeed, one may edit the sources almost at will, with no ill
 effect, only adding files seems to discomfit dpkg).

	manoj

-- 
 The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men
 of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.  -- Justice Louis
 D. Brandeis
Manoj Srivastava               Systems Research Programmer, Project Pilgrim,
Phone: (413) 545-3918                A143B Lederle Graduate Research Center,
Fax:   (413) 545-1249         University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003
<[email-masked]> <URL:http://www.pilgrim.umass.edu/%7Esrivasta/>