[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Building d-i using wheezy-backports bits

Hi there!

On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 15:39:59 +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Le jeudi, 30 janvier 2014, 02.51:48 Cyril Brulebois a écrit :
>> II. How to install a backported kernel
>> ======================================
>> (…)
>>  Now here's another way which doesn't look so scary:
>>  1) Make sure the kernel installation step still installs stable's
>>     kernel (which might not be functional, but having it shouldn't
>>     hurt; and not changing such critical code doesn't look too
>>     bad…), and make sure it stores the package name somewhere for
>>     later use.
> Sure. Having the stable kernel installed in all cases is definitely 
> good.

Fully agree, which is actually what I do IRL (the stable kernel is never
removed).  And then I realized that even on my laptop with sid, I always
keep the sid kernel installed, despite most of the time using the latest
experimental one ;-)

>> IV. How to maintain wheezy-backports compared to master
>> =======================================================
>> Since master both gets kernel config updates (which we want for
>> backports) and many other irrelevant stuff, I'm a bit undecided on how
>> to keep track of wheezy-backports: either cherry-pick relevant stuff
>> from master; or merge regularly, reverting unnecessary bits. I would
>> tend to go with the former.
> It looks like a matter of intent: either we want "stable d-i + kernel 
> from backports + glue" or "testing d-i built against stable + kernel 
> from backports". The first is less risky for what d-i is concerned, 
> while the latter allows a wider testing of the jessie d-i… The latter is 
> what you have in your branch currently, no?

Interesting question: I was under the impression that we wanted Didier's
former, i.e. "stable d-i + kernel from backports + glue" at least
because we modify the least possible bits.  Which seems to me very
similar to the general rules for backports.

Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: