Re: Best practices for kernel patches?
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 02:41:27PM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
[..snip..]
> Secondly, I got burned trying to deliver kernel-patch-<version>-ia64 packages
> against kernel-source-<version> because you don't leave the source packages
> around very long. Architectures that aren't merged with Linus fully are
> usually a rev or three behind, so having the, say, 2.4.7 kernel source package
> removed from the archive because 2.4.9 is out for at least i386 means things
> were broken for ia64, et al, pretty regularly. I got uppity with James about
> removing kernel-source-<version> packages when there were other packages that
> build depended on them, but after talking it became clear that it really was
> up to the registered maintainer of the package to decide how long they should
> live and when they should be removed... and I needed to insulate myself from
> frustration some other way.
[..snip..]
Same here for kernel-patch-<version>-mips packages. A possible solution
would be to have a *clean* upstream kernel source package in the archive, that
stays there until no other package build-depends on it.
-- Guido
Reply to: