Re: http://debian.linuxwiki.de/DebianKernel_2fPlan

[Thiemo Seufer <ica2_ts@csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de>]

Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
[snip]
> >> linux-kernel-KVERS-ARCH(-SUBVERS) (plus extras, see below)
> >
> > remov the -kernel, linux is the kernel, and upstream tarballs are
> > linux-$version, too.
> >
> > remove the -arch, it'll be .$arch.deb anyway, rather add a -flavour.
> 
> What do you name linux-2.6.6-amd64-generic-1_2.6.6-1_i386.deb then?
>                  ^name ^KVER ^ARCH ^flavour^revision ^package arch
>                                              ^dpkg version

- I think it should be *_amd64.deb in the long run.
- "generic" is a reather useless placeholder for the one and only
  flavour, and too unspecific if there are several. 
- KVERS should probably be major/minor only, this helps keeping
  the unstable/testing kernel in an installation current, and
  avoids explicit removal requests for obsolete ones.
- The revision can be encoded in the dpkg version, if we apply the same
  convention for all kernel packages.

[snip]
> >> * make sure that even the "pristine" tarball contains minimalistic
> >>   information about its status in Debian (packagename, version), so it
> >>   would be easier to create meta-source packages with kernel-builder
> >> * deliver architecture-independent changes as a "debian" patch
> >
> > tend to disagree here.  the .diff.gz of kernel-source (or whatever it's
> > called) should contain all patches needed to build all images.
> 
> No. Please don't. The build-time and the amount of rebuilds needed
> makes such an undertaking impossible.

Not exactly impossible, but it won't work well for non-mainstream
architectures.


Thiemo