From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev-return-4947-arch-gentoo-dev=gentoo.org@gentoo.org>
Received: (qmail 10140 invoked by uid 1002); 24 Jul 2003 13:38:27 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev-unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev-subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Received: (qmail 32718 invoked from network); 24 Jul 2003 13:38:27 -0000
From: Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:38:23 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.2
References: <20030723121603.11ab807e.frogger@gentoo.org> <20030724090711.GH30147%chutz@gg3.net> <20030724090706.37242e13.frogger@gentoo.org>
In-Reply-To: <20030724090706.37242e13.frogger@gentoo.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
  protocol="application/pgp-signature";
  micalg=pgp-sha1;
  boundary="Boundary-02=_QF+H/0v/HEiRmbU";
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200307241538.24351.pauldv@gentoo.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.1 required=5.0
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/)
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Where to put prerelease vanilla kernels?
X-Archives-Salt: 18d7efa6-3359-4c04-9e3f-b4873bed1447
X-Archives-Hash: 6dfcb0859255f014f21c37d51c4ba1fb

--Boundary-02=_QF+H/0v/HEiRmbU
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Description: signed data
Content-Disposition: inline

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=20
means that it still requires user action to actually install a prekernel.=20
That means that a user must actually decide on running a prekernel

Paul

=2D-=20
Paul de Vrieze
Researcher
Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

--Boundary-02=_QF+H/0v/HEiRmbU
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Description: signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQA/H+FQbKx5DBjWFdsRAvkDAKDGv0WVgxzDTi0500BO7IqiPO/xEwCeI2eC
YImNdbrYcRtHe2rxefiK/mU=
=BOKS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Boundary-02=_QF+H/0v/HEiRmbU--