Re: RFC: kernel packages cleanup
Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 07:33:59PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> >
> > m68k has some 2.4 kernels so I hope that 2.2 isn't required anymore.
>
> Unfortunately, it is. At least for mac we know we need 2.2, and half of our
> buildds are macs. Most Amigas work with 2.4.25, not sure why/if some don't,
> but if we keep 2.2.25 for all but Amiga (I have no reports if the other
> subarches can use 2.4.x), we might as well keep the one amiga image.
Would it be possible to aggregate the various kernel-image-m68k-foo
source packages into a single kernel-image-$(version)-m68k package
which builds -amiga, -atari, -mvme147, mvme16x, -bvme6000 and -mac
binary packages? That would at least reduce the number of source
packages.
> > Also it is quite likely that 2.2.x doesn't compile with tools in
> > sarge anymore. We've faced this with the powerpc/apus update.
>
> Nope, it works with 2.2.25 and I added the build-dependency with the last
> upload.
Good.
> You can remove all 2.4.x m68k images, patches and headers except for the
> latest one (2.4.25).
Could you file a bug report against ftp.debian.org so that our
ftpmasters know which packages exactly they can remove? Thanks.
> > 5. Try to build as many architectures from one source package, so
> > that kernel-image packages can be autobuilt by the buildd network
> > and that the number of source packages reduces.
> >
> > This would help the security team a lot.
>
> As nice as it sounds, I don't like that. One 2.4 kernel-image takes about 6h
> on the fastest m68k machines, I wouldn't want to build 6 or more of those (I
> am thinking of build q40 and sun3 images as well) in one go, maybe to fix
> just one module in one subarch.
Hmm. You've got a point as long as we're talking about unstable.
However, in stable it's not likely that we're fixing random bugs on
only one architecture.
Regards,
Joey
--
GNU GPL: "The source will be with you... always."
Reply to: