On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 20:41, C. Brewer wrote: > On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 15:26:52 -0400 > Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > > A problem is that people who release kernel patches do not do so at the > > same time (e.g. Con Kolivas's second patchset for 2.4.22 is not released > > at the same time as Alan Cox's third patchset for 2.4.22 etc etc, so the > > version numbers would not work out properly for third-party patchsets, > > and people wouldn't know when upgrades were available. > > I had thought about that myself, and quite honestly figured two approaches- > bump a revision on patch changes, which would have the side effect of > forcing an upgrade on people who don't require it, or more realistically, > people using sources other than vanilla you would assume to be atleast > tracking the changes somewhat, so as to be notified via the patchmaker, or > if a little blurb was added to the changelog when a patch was updated. > Currently, I still track changes in the dev-sources by browsing kernel.org > every day, even though yall have consistently provided updated ebuilds darn > near immediately. So if there was maybe a little info blurb people could > look at to know when a patchset was updated, it would work out better with > the useflags. > Ahh, but part of the point of having a package management system (a large part, IMHO) is so you _don't_ have to go track down the current versions of things you run.