Re: 2.6.12 upload
On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 04:55:42PM +0300, Horms wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 12:39:55PM +0300, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > Alright folks, I think the packaging is ready to be beaten on by people.
> > So, unless anyone has any concerns/problems/etc, I'm going to assume
> > everything's a go for uploading 2.6.12.
>
> Excellent
>
> > The current changes and state of the packaging:
> > - source package is called linux-2.6
> > - binary image packages have been renamed from kernel-image-* to
> > linux-image-*. binary header packages have been renamed from
> > kernel-headers-* to linux-headers-*. kfreebsd/hurd folks, if you have
> > any comments/concerns/requirements, please be sure to let us know.
> > - debian/control is generated from debian/templates/control.*.in, and
> > naming/descriptions should be consistent across the various archs.
> > - config files are generated from the pieces in debian/arch, with
> > management of configs made a lot easier via tools in trunk/scripts
> > (initconfig and split-config). I will probably tweak settings for
> > the global config a bit more; expect some FTBFS for architectures
> > until we figure out which options are safe for everyone, and which
> > options are suitable only for certain archs.
> > - i'm leaning towards using gcc-3.3, as i'm afraid of gcc-4.0
> > miscompiling things. however, if any architectures require gcc-4.0,
> > either let me know, or update svn directly.
>
> How are you planing to do that.
> I need to do something about the fact that users go and
> grab kernel-source-2.4.27 and it doesn't compile with the
> default gcc any more. Here are three solutions I have thought.
>
> 1. Document this somewhere
> 2. Change the makefile to default to gcc-3.3
> 3. Change the makefile to print out a nice error if gcc version >=4.0
4. ask for removal of 2.4.27 from etch/sid :)
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: