[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: kernel-image 2.4 i386 update



On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 04:20:41PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Here are a few updates regarding kernel-image 2.4 i386
> 
> * This does not effect the kernel-source package at all.
> 
> * kernel-image-2.4.26-i386 2.4.26-6 is in incoming
>   - After some discussion on this list and a failed upload I have
>     rebuilt 2.4.26-6 and uploaded it. 
>   - The packages that were also provided
>     by the 2.4.27 have been removed. There were no other changes
>     from the previous failed upload. For a full list of changes please
>     see the changelog.
>   - All changes are in SVN
>   - For reference the packages can also be found at
>     http://debian.vergenet.net/pending/ for now.
> 
> * kernel-latest-2.4-i386
>   - This is a NEW package that provides the meta packages that were
>     previously provided by kernel-image-2.4.26-i386 and are currently
>     provided by kernel-image-2.4.27-i386. The plan is for them to be
>     removed from kernel-image-2.4.27-i386 and only provided by this
>     new meta package. This package will need to be updated if
>     a flavour is added or removed or when a kernel-image for
>     a new upstream is uploaded. I have made this package achitecture
>     specific as it is primarily concerened with flavours which
>     are clearly architecture specific.
>   - This is now in SVN under trunk/kernel-2.4/i386
>   - For reference packages can be found in 
>     http://debian.vergenet.net/pending/
>   - These have _not_ been uploaded to d.o
> 
> I would like to upload kernel-latest-2.4-i386 to d.o shortly.  If there
> are any objections now would be a most excellent time to make them.
> 
> For reference, the following parties were involved in the discussion
> of the creation of kernel-latest-2.4-i386: Joshua Kwan, Dann Frazier,
> Sven Luther and myself.

BTW, the idea i had was to have one source package for all arches for those,
but maybe this is more work.

Friendly,

Sven Luther



Reply to: