On Thursday 24 July 2003 15:07, Matt Rickard wrote:
> > I fully support the opinions stated above, and I simply cannot
> > comprehend what the big deal with ~arch masking vanilla-sources is.
> > Even *considering* the option of a separate package is ridiculous. As
> > long as developers are careful enough to not remove the ~arch mask
> > from any _pre kernel, I am perfectly fine, and I believe there
> > wouldn't be anyone who isn't fine. What are we trying to do-- make
> > sure people who insist on running the *unstable* profile actually
> > don't get the "unstable" sources.
>
> Well the fact is that an unstable kernel can be a whole lot more
> problematic than an unstable userland package.  With userland, if it
> crashes, oh well, you can start it up again.  With an unstable kernel
> you run the risk of hard locks and corrupted filesystems.

As far as I know we don't actually compile any kernel automatically. That 
means that it still requires user action to actually install a prekernel. 
That means that a user must actually decide on running a prekernel

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Researcher
Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net