Re: RFC: kernel packages cleanup
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > m68k has some 2.4 kernels so I hope that 2.2 isn't required anymore.
> > 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.
>
> Judging from the answers I got until now, architectures still requiring
> kernel 2.2 today are:
> - several m68k subarchitectures
> - sparc32
Oh. sparc32 is new to me. Dooh.
> After a quick view over all kernel and related packages, it seems doable
> to remove all 2.4 kernels except 2.4.24 and 2.4.25.
We still need 2.4.19 because that's the latest kernel that runs on
several DECstation. When a newer kernel works on these machines
as well, an older one can go, I guess.
> > But I'd like to add two more proposals
> >
> > 4. Remove all source kernel-foo packages that contain the kernel
> > source but aren't named kerne-source-$(version) and create at
> > least one kernel-source-$(version)*_all.deb.
> >
> > This may already be the case but in woody there are some of these,
> > called kernel-image-foo but contain the entire kernel source.
>
> I checked all kernel-image-* packages in unstable.
> Some contain patches, but none contains the complete kernel sources.
Great! At least one improvement against woody.
> > 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.
>
> This might be doable, but in the end this means that the kernel
> package maintainers from different architectures will have to work
> together on one source package.
It'd be ashaming if it won't be possible for several porters to work
together closely.
> One down side would be that an urgent fix for one architecture will
> require new kernel images for all architectures. But e.g. XFree86 faces
> similar problems and it works there.
If you are more careful about updates it won't be that much of a
problem. You must not do Marrillats[1] or small fixes and need
good testing.
> Slighlty related:
> It's good if several architectures can be built without any patches that
> are not in the main kernel source package. As an example, ia64 used to
Yes, that would be good. However, if you follow porting and porters
work, most ports work on their own kernel tree and not all required
changes get merged into the mainstream kernel in time. This is a high
goal, but hardly reachable, I fear. It's also outside of Debians capacity
most of the time.
Regards,
Joey
[1] uploading with foobared changelog just for the sake of it
--
GNU GPL: "The source will be with you... always."
Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.
Reply to: