Re: 2.6.12 upload
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 11:20:29PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Horms <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > We seem to be running around in circles here. If an image package
> > depends on kernel-tree-x.y.z-N, then kernel-source-x.y.z can be
> > updated and the image can still be rebuilt, verbatim.
> > Let me try and illustrate by example:
> > * kernel-source-2.6.8 version 2.6.8-1 is released
> > * kernel-image-2.6.8-i386 version 2.6.8-1 is released with a dependancy
> > on kernel-tree-2.6.8-1
> > * kernel-source-2.6.8 version 2.6.8-2 is released
> > * kernel-image-2.6.8-i386 is not updated, but can still be rebuilt
> > using kernel-source-2.6.8 version 2.6.8-1 or version 2.6.8-2
> > Now, if di could use the kernel-tree dependancies, then
> > kernel-source can be updated and the di images can still be rebuilt.
> > --
> > Horms
> But that all went out the window with the linux-2.6 source upload.
> Now it is linux-2.6 version 2.6.12-1 getting replaced by 2.6.13-1 and
> kernel-tree-2.6.12-1 is repalced by kernel-tree-2.6.13-1. No more
> 2.6.12 source for the images.
Yes, that would obviously be a problem, though this might be solvable
by coordinating upgrading the upstream version between the
kernel and d-i teams. Upstream movement is unlikely to occur close
to release, and Franz Pop already mentioned that nightly builds
were acceptable for most other times.
> And D-I does not have a depends or build-depends on the tree anyway as
> it downloads the precompiled debs, unpacks them and repack them
> differently as udebs.
> The best and only solution sofar is to megre the
> linux-kernel-di-<arch> udebs into the linux-2.6 package and get them
> build directly when the source is compiled.
I tend to aggree, though I believe Franz Pop, or perhaps some of the
other d-i team members have reason for keeping these images separate.
Perhaps they could reiterate them here.