Re: [wli@holomorphy.com: Re: NMU: kernel]
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:26:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Which two of four ? at least the SFS patch is maybe not ppc specific,
> but has never been tested on something else, (well, maybe m68k), and is
> of use mostly on m68k and powerpc, since it is an amiga/morphos related
> filesystem.
> Furthermore, after discussion with upstream, he feels it is not ready to
> go into the main kernels, and i would most assuredly not argue against
> that.
right, it's quite buggy in area and thus is misplaced in a kernel
package, too.
So once again it's too crappy for mainline but good enough for Debian?
Does exactly sound like a way to assure high quality kernel packages.
> Well, even for ppc, the 2.6 kernel patch is a new development, let's
> maybe more militate for having this model used on all arches instead of
> the monolitic diff.
>
> That said, maybe it would be a good thing also to think of a mechanism
> for all per arch packages to be rebuilt when the kernel-source package
> is rebuilt, i believe this will be usefull. This is already the case in
> the case of security fixes, but this is a special case.
Given that everyone extremly dislikes the single source package scheme
I think I'll give up the fight on this one. Following Jens' suggestion
I'd at least keep a common CVS repository of patches though, even if
there's differen kernel-image soure packages using it. That way we at
least keep the patch mess under control (and avoid thing like asfs or
asfs that are in no way arch specific sneak only into a single
kernel-image) while giving the arch maintainers to rebuild at their
will and not pushing dpkg limits yet.
Reply to: