Re: [wli@holomorphy.com: Re: NMU: kernel]
> > and with that I mean the existing maintainers should cooperate.
>
> Indeed. But cooperation already exists. So far, it meant that
> Herbert took the upstream source, prepared a kernel-source package,
> and put it up on people.d.o for the other maintainers to download and
> prepare their arch-specific kernel-image packages. Very efficient. I
> don't think we could come even close to this if we had one source
> package for all kernel-image packages.
So your defintion of good cooperation is that e.g. in your
kernel-patch-powerpc package two out of four patches aren't ppc-specific
in any way? And of the ppc specific ones both wouldn't harm any other
arch because everything is under arch/ppc/
I really think everyone would be server much better with a single
patchkit from that all kernels are built.
For patches like your kernel-patch-powerpc that would be a no brainer
because you already have properly splitted patches, but for some folks
that would mean they'd have to stop simply diffing two kernel trees
in favour of thinking what the actual changes are supposed to do.
Reply to: