Re: http://debian.linuxwiki.de/DebianKernel_2fPlan
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 07:52:15AM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> > > * architecture support patches hard to apply unless the main kernel-source
> > > package is "pristine"
> >
> > as mentioned a few times architecture packages should be part of the
> > main kernel-source to avoid a big maintaince mess
>
> I believe its a greater maintenance mess to attempt to keep them united.
> I can be more confident that upstream's ia64 arch patch will apply reasonably
> well to a kernel-source tree, like what we have today, than if we try to
> merge all of these architectures into a single mainline tree.
Why? And again, here's a bunch of folks in the team who have done worse
merge operations that you'd ever want to imagine. And if you look back
a little in history you can see that it was me who sorted out most of
the mess that was in the 2.5 ia64 patch so it can build from mainline.
Upstream arch maintainers unfortunately are lazy, and instead of
following that lazyness in the debian packages better help them.
> There's also the infrastructure load that has been brought up on this list.
> If we share a kernel-source tree (no arch packages), then each upload requires
> a build on all architectures, and the corresponding storage space on our
> mirror system. This would add an unnecessary barrier to entry for me to
> fix a few bugs in my package & do an upload:
well, if we want a reasonably maintained kernel we should do uploads
about once a week anyway (that's still much less than the commcerial
distros), and you small fixes would fit into this easily.
> I don't believe the security team gains anything by merging trees; in fact, I think
> its a disservice.
I'll let them speak for themselves..
> Imagine the case of an s390-specific exploit - having to build
> on 11 arches to deal with that surely won't save them any time.
So when was the last s390-specific exploit you heard of? Or any
architecture-specific exploit?
Reply to: