Re: Bug#394971: [powerpc64] load the fan control modules
Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
>> > Well, this is not how things are, after investigation and discussion with
>> > Benjamin Herrenschmidt, the powerpc/powermac linux kernel maintainer. The
>> > current way of doing this is the best compromise for within the 2.6.18 and
>> > etch timeframe.
>>
>> What's the plan for lenny? Is it going to change on 2.6.19 or so?
>
> lenny is etch +1. If lenny take the same time as etch, 18 months, we could
> have 2.6.24 for lenny. I hope that this would be fixed by then.
Ok :-D
>> >> I would expect that i2c-powermac and windfarm_core can safely be dropped.
>> >
>> > And you would expect wrong. When are you going to stop to try to second guess
>> > the work and investigation i do, and try by all mean to show me as incapable ?
>>
>> Hold on Sven... I need to agree here with Frans. We always should try
>> to reduce the amount of code and looks like there's a lot of dependent
>> module being loaded by hand in your patch. If it has a reason, it's ok
>> but you need to tell us about it.
>
> Ok, fine, i guess benh will wlecome your patches.
>
> If upstream tells me we need to work on this, but right now it is not possible
> otherwise, i tend to believe him. It is also upstream work, and i don't really
> have time for it, and in any case, we don't have the time for etch to get
> those patches migrated upstream, which is needed accordying to the
> debian/kernel team policy, and it will be available at the earliest in 2.6.20
> if we submit it today.
Even if the patch is simple? (I mean for inclusion on Debian patch queue).
>> It's impossible to you, Frans or everyone to know about everything on
>> every arch so as a D-I RM Frans did a question and I think you can
>> just reply to it as I usually do and many others does too. There's no
>> try to show you as incapable person.
>
> This would be the case if :
>
> 1) he had commented on the bug during the month it had been open.
>
> 2) he had considered including the pacth last week when he did the 1.42
> upload.
>
> 3) he had asked me about the breakage and we had uploaded a fixed package
> instead of reverting it.
I more or less agree with you here. I agree that would have another
ways to handle things but also I don't think if he doesn't do what I
or you think is the right thing todo he's completely wrong. He has
the right to think different from us and follow his thoughts about it.
> This being not the case, and he keeping me in a unfair and humiliating
> position since over 6 months, i am very justified to critic him on this.
>
> And yes, in case you didn't notice, i am angry about the way i have been
> handled, and now, so many months after the fact, i am rightly angered.
Please ... you're humiliating yourself. It's not he who's humiliating
you.
Just do a great patch, prove that you're a good and trustable porter
and he won't have options but allow you back.
>> As you know I worry about ppc status and try to be updated about
>> it. I'm still lacking the need hardware to work on it but it should
>> change in near future and I'll get more involviment on it as I did
>> before when I had an iBook. Besides, we all do mistake and you aren't
>> different.
>
> Sure, i am different, i am the only one who is outcast and humiliated like i
> am.
Read above...
>> We should try to review our code and patches to ensure a high quality
>> on d-i and it should be done when the patches are pending to be
>> commited as Frans is doing now. Please calm down and just reply for
>
> He is only commiting and comenting on them because i did the upload on sunday,
> and because i raised a fuss over the revert upload from him.
>
> If he had come to me, and commented about the bug in question, this would be
> something else, but given the way this happened, added to the humiliating
> handling i am getting from frans and a few others, ...
Let's have a deal. When you don't receive a comment on a bug, please
ping me. There're a lot of reason to it happen not only disagreements
with you. There're a bunch of bugs to handle on d-i and sometimes
those bugs are forgotten. Just bring my attention to them and I can
try to coordenate it.
> Indeed, but the patch was commited a whole month ago, and frans did an upload
> of rootskel a week ago, and didn't even bother considering the patch in
> question, even though i told him repeteadly that doing d-i test installation
> on the XServe without it is really health damaging. I always end up with a
> headache and if i work at night, i wake the kids. That is how loud it is.
Read above...
>> >> Finally, why was S50directfb-linux-powerpc added in the Makefile? This
>> >> seems unrelated to this patch.
>> >
>> > It was not. Or should not have been. If it was, it is uniquely a result of a
>> > bad manipulation caused by me not having the svn commit right, and you are as
>> > thus solely to blame for it.
>> >
>> > But seriously, find attached my svn diff, there is no trace of a
>> > S50directfb-linux-powerpc in my diff, if it was there, it most probably did
>> > come from an older commit. I did in fact do an apt-get source of rootskel, and
>> > then applied the svn diff output, so i have no idea where this
>> > S50directfb-linux-powerpc file came from. I guess it came from earlier
>> > experiments done while me and attilio and a few others tried to investigate
>> > the g-i breakage.
>>
>> Yes, it was include in your patch and might be useful if you can send
>> a revised patch fixing the modprobe syntax and removing this hook
>> from it.
>
> I don't know from where it comes, it is not in my local svn checkout, so ...
So please send another reviewed patch that I can apply :-D
--
O T A V I O S A L V A D O R
---------------------------------------------
E-mail: otavio@debian.org UIN: 5906116
GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855
Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br
---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives
you the whole house."
Reply to: