Re: Sheevaplug Kernel packages - backports.org vs people.debian.org/~tbm/orion vs tbm snapshots

[Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com>]

* debian.arm.nospam@sub.noloop.net <debian.arm.nospam@sub.noloop.net> [2009-10-10 12:25]:
> Thanks for the summary. I'm mostly concerned about which of the two 
> repositories (yours and bpo) are most likely to be up to date wrt
> security patches etc.

I'm not sure how up-to-date bpo is.  I must admit that I definitely
lag behind unstable from time to time, but I can try to improve that.

> Also, are there any extra marvell-specific patches in your orion repo,
> or are the bpo packages configured and patched identically?

Some of the packages have patches, but not the kernel.  With the
kernel, I put everything in unstable first.  In other words, the Orion
repo and bpo really use the same source code.

> Finally, regarding stable vs unstable, personally it doesn't matter
> but if there's a difference in gcc versions used, then I guess maybe
> the unstable kernels may cause trouble if there is a need to
> compile 3rd party kernel modules?

Hmm, that's a good point.  I guess I need to look into bpo and see if
it makes sense to use their kernels.

Thanks for the suggestion.
-- 
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/