Re: kernel-patch-amd64
> Who took that decision ? And even then, how would it be all that
> different from the many alternative trees out there, like the -mm one
> Christoph refered to me recently.
>
> Nothing is stoping us from presenting usefull stuff to our unstable
> users while we are still working on it, is this not how free software
> works ?
This may be okay for unstable, but I would love it if the next stable
release of debian shipped a 'pristine' (except for non-distributable
firmware) kernel.org kernel for ppc, x86, and amd64. Other arches will
probably need some patch.
Do we have a mechanism for dropping patches as we move from
unstable->testing->stable ? Or a way to mark a package as "unstable
only" ?
> > 2) Getting the patch upstream allows upstream kernel hackers to review
> > it. This is of real interest to our users, since we ensure that they
> > will have a verified and accepted (read: supported) kernel.
>
> Except that it doesn't always work, often the upstream kernel hackers
> don't even care to read the patch and you wait forever for comments.
Sometimes, but I think we now have a better chance if we keep Viro, HCH,
Benh, etc involved.
If there is a specific patch that's submitted to kernel.org, and we get
no response, by all means, include it in the debian package, but if we
have a good reason to have it, and can make good technical points, we
can include it.. but it's got to be discussed first.
I looked over the amd64 patch, and it's all arch-specific code.. so I
don't have a real problem with it, assumeing the changes are slated to
show up in 2.6.8.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Benjegerdes 'da hozer' hozer@hozed.org
Somone asked my why I work on this free (http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/)
software stuff and not get a real job. Charles Shultz had the best answer:
"Why do musicians compose symphonies and poets write poems? They do it
because life wouldn't have any meaning for them if they didn't. That's why
I draw cartoons. It's my life." -- Charles Shultz
Reply to: