Re: 2.2.17 i386 boot-floppies uploading
"Christian T. Steigies" <email@example.com> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 06:36:17PM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> > No, dude, it's just the exact same as README-Users.m4, just
> > translated. It should be handled just the same.
> > > Its impossible to upload this, since builds for other
> > > arches will probably also have this file, for their special architecture.
> > Eh?
> What I mean is, it has to end up in one of the bf-* files since they have an
> arch specific ending. I simply can not upload a README.pl file to incoming.
> If powerpc uploaded on the same day, its rejected, since the m68k files
> already exists WITH AN IDENTICAL NAME. The way I understood the bf, all files
> which are to be uploaded shall end in one of the bf-*<arch> files. Right?
Ah! Ok -- this is a bug in release.sh I think. The file should be
flying free and out there like that.
> > > m68k: the mac people want to bump up their kernel to 2.2.16. When we finally
> > > receive the patches, we might be able to built 2.2.16 kernel images for the
> > > other architectures as well, until then we would have to use 2.2.16 for mac
> > > and 2.2.10 for everybody else, is it possible to do that for m68k (I think
> > > Ive seen something similar for powerpc)?
> > Sure, I think so. Just fudge around int he top-level Makefile.
> > Are the kernels uploaded for Potato yet?
> No, they are not even built yet... 2.2.16 is working on my amiga, I'd like
> people with other machines to test it before we use it for boot-floppies.
> These days you even have to build your own kernel-source_2.2.16, thats why
> we (linux-m68k) are officially still at 2.2.10.
> BTW, if I upload those images, we should also have a kernel-patch package,
> but I did not see a kernel-source-2.2.16 package in debian.
Oh -- ick. We got .15 and .17 but not .16. I guess you'd have to
either upload or ask Xu to upload such a package.
I would *hate* to ship boot-floppies requiring a kernel which cannot
be built using sources in Potato.
> > You are wanting to make Mac install disks for 2.2.10 as well as
> > 2.2.16? This makes my heart sink. Is that really necessary?
> I don't want it, the mac guys proposed that, since some machines do not work
> well with 2.2.16. Some only work with 2.2.16, some like Penguin18, some only
> work with Penguin17 and, oh I am sure some can only cope with 2.0.36. Its a
> total mess and I am not really sure what to do without a debian/mac68k
Ew. Well... with no maintainer, there is always the option to just
leave it as it is and focus on the part of the port which has active
support and maintainers.
> I only wanted to hear that its not, I mean _how_ feasible it is.
It's feasible, but it's a lot of work to add another flavor, not to
mention the necessary documentation updates and such.
> > > I think we want new kernel images (2.2.10) for amiga and atari anyway, how
> > > much time do we have till 2.2.18 (hint for debian-68k: I need the patches to
> > > go in, without them I can not built kernel-images)?
> > Christian, you should feel free to burn and release point versions for
> > Mac at any time. Just tag/dpkg-buildpackage -uc -us/debsign then
> > upload it. It's just a source upload rather than just a binary
> > upload.
> Argh, no, please not for mac. I don't have a mac, I work for m68k. I'd like
> to keep it as simple as possible, thus one kernel-image version for all
> subarches. If mac guys want very special things, they have to create a mac
I meant to point out that any porters can do boot-floppies point
releases if they need to. I'm not requiring that you do.... :)
> > Thus we could have 2.2.18 on Tuesday (i386) then 2.2.19 on Friday
> > (m68k) or whatever, it doesn't matter, integers are cheap and
> > plentiful. I don't believe in making all ports wait for all other
> > ports.
> Yup, sure.
Well, keep us updated.
.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>