First of all, thank you very much for your reply, Oliver!
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 11:38:59AM +0100, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> On Do, 2008-01-17 at 22:30 +0100, Josef Wolf wrote:
> > Wolf Canis wrote:
> > >>>> And there other sites too, but non of these are really working,
> > >>>> because Cononical don't want that.
> > I bet this is not by intent. IANAL, but I guess it could be a GPL
> > violation if it would be by intent.
> canonical != ubuntu ...
> decisions like the kernel package split are driven by technical, legal
> or usability reasons (with focus on the enduser (read: ease of use of
> the binary packages)) the restricted modules are a good example here,
> including them in the kernel package would break teh GPL for example ...
I am not really sure whether we are really talking about the same issue.
Since english is not my native language, I am pretty much sure I am the
cause of the confusion.
I try to express my understandings.
- You are talking about the split into separate packages because of
license issues (which is pretty much OK, AFAICS. There is no sensible
way to get around that). IMHO, nobody in this thread ever opposed
- I was talking about how to get the sources which are required to
regenerate the original kernel binary that is distributed along with
gutsy. IMHO, the ability to get the source of the binary is the very
intent of GPL. As I wrote above, I am pretty much sure it is _not_ by
intent. To be honest: I am pretty much sure the problem is on my side.
I simply have not (yet) figured out how regenerate the binary. I have
never said that anybody intentionally keeps me from compiling my own
kernel. The intent of my post was to eliminate my own errors in the
kernel build process and find out the actual instructions how to do it.
I am very sorry for the confusion that I caused by not properly express
> the linux-ubuntu-modules package has a similar purpose of distinguishing
> between kernel.org and ubuntu provided modules ...
License issues again. You have a very good reason to do this. And
AFAICS, nobody ever criticized that. The only critique was that there
is no explanation to be found how to regenerate it from the sources.
> what the heck makes anyone think here there are any political desicions
> involved ? [ ... ]
Ough! I am very sorry if you understood it this way! Really, I never
had the idea that it is a political decision. My idea was that it is
either me (not understanding how to properly compile) or it is an
accident (the kernel team by accident packaged the wrong version of
the sources into the package or some such)
> i am surprised that wolf claims he likes ubuntu for its written words
> but didnt discover the governance structure (community council,
> technical board, loco teams etc) of the distro yet :)
Please don't get confused. There are _two_ wolf's involved in this
thread. There is "Wolf Canis", and there is "Josef Wolf" (that is me)
> > For me, the reason is to activate low-latency-desktop. This is needed
> > to get a smooth video playback with vdr-sxfe. You just can't change
> > scheduler strategy by only compiling additional modules.
> thats why there is a -lowlatency kernel package in universe that
> fulfills exactly this purpose and works with the shipped -modules
> packages ;)
I am not really sure. Is -lowlatency really identical to
ubuntu-users mailing list
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: