Re: Bug#323183: Please remove some linux packages from sid
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 01:13:46AM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 02:43:36PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > It should be removed from unstable if no one steps up to maintain it; it
> > needs to be repackaged more or less from scratch in order to migrate to 2.6
> > and I will not be effecting that transition because I no longer use UML.
>
> It would be quite a shame to see it completely gone from sid; I find it
> comes in handy now and then. However, I'd have no desire to deal w/ the
> 2.4 version. For 2.6, instead of building it as an outside package,
> perhaps it should be an i386 subarch or flavour within the linux-2.6
> package? It seems like it would
> be a better fit, as we could manage config options (keeping the global
> ones in sync even across uml), as well as trigger an automatic rebuild
> of uml easily for each new kernel upload (and security update!).
That sounds great.
> If it needs additional patches that aren't compatible w/ other
> architectures, it would be a candidate for subarch inclusion; otherwise,
> it could just as easily be another i386 flavour (I believe the current
> linux-2.6 packaging supports the cross-compilation stuff necessary to
> override ARCH=um?).
I think that UML is targeting generic kernel trees these days, such that you
should be able to build a UML kernel or a standard kernel regardless of
applying UML-specific patches.
> According to the sf uml page, past 2.6.9, a separate patch is not needed
> for uml.
Correct, the only patches are updates to the UML arch.
> What about the skas patch, was a version of that ever merged into 2.6?
I'm not sure; skas3 was explicitly rejected, and skas4 was intended as a new
design which satisfied the kernel maintainers' requirements.
--
- mdz
Reply to: