Re: Debian non-x86 kernel arches
>>> and with that I mean the existing maintainers should cooperate.
Jens Schmalzing <j.s@lmu.de> wrote:
>> 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.
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 01:22:16PM -0500, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
> It may be efficient for maintainers, but it leads to non-x86 arches
> being second-class citizens if everyone has to wait for the x86
> maintainer to prepare arch-specific kernels. The result is I just go
> download source and build for all my PPC debian machines. I'd really
> rather get a debian package. But if ppc has to wait for x86, it just
> gets to take too long.
For 2.4 and earlier this was an absolute necessity. For 2.6, there has
been a concerted effort to repair core impedance mismatches and/or API
deficiencies preventing architectures from working in mainline, and
we should work through mainline.
I also like to think I don't suffer from this kind of malady.
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 01:22:16PM -0500, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
> I'd like to propose we attempt to build x86, amd64, ppc, and ia64
> kernels from the same source tree. Arches like mips and m68k will
> probably still need extra patches. But we should really be working to
> mainline those patches.
> Note I did not include PPC64 in this list yet... I think we are gated on
> that until we have something equivalent to what amd64 has on alioth.
For 2.6 I would like to see a consolidation effort, but there are other
issues to tackle first. I don't want to go about planning this until
everything's in place and the port maintainers are fully involved.
-- wli
Reply to: