On Thu, 2015-05-21 at 00:12 +0200, maximilian attems wrote: > On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 01:36:53PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Sun, 2015-05-17 at 13:25 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > > > > > At the moment only spl is available in the archive, using dkms, and > > > > for zfs it's similar in the way of packaging though not uploaded yet. > > > > What we have (code ready to go) is a mechanism that detects/gets > > > > definition of a current KVERS and generate a source package with > > > > dependencies and binary packages with names corresponding to it. > > > > > > > > What do you guys think? > > > > > > My personal stance on kernel related things would be “upstream first”. > > > If it ain't going to be merged into mainline, or at least accepted as a > > > patchset (like e.g. aufs3 or rt in wheezy) for src:linux, I'm not sure > > > we want to support that. > > > > > > Cc-ing debian-kernel@ to see what they think. > > > > I strongly oppose adding OOT modules this way as a supposed workaround > > for licence incompatibility. > > > > this has been indeed our general conensus. we reject OOT modules or > patchsets that have zero or near zero probability of getting merged upstream. I meant as a separate package that goes into the installer, not the kernel package (where I think our policy is well known now!). Ben. -- Ben Hutchings I'm not a reverse psychological virus. Please don't copy me into your sig.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part