Re: ITP: kernel-patch-2.2.14-raid and kernel-image-2.2.14-raid
On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 04:19:47PM +0300, Pekka Aleksi Knuutila wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 04:13:31PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > Isn't this kind of pointless considering
> > a) 2.2.15 will be coming RSN
> You are right that the packages may be obsolete in the near future, but I
> think they will be very useful for Debian users. Especially since you can't
> find RAID patches for 2.2.14 from ftp.kernel.org (the main distribution
> channel for RAID software) but have to get them from the authors homepage
> (www.redhat.com/~mingo/), which has made many users think that they have to
> use older kernels.
It would be a short lived win. Normal users wont be using woody. If people
are using woody, they can expect things to be missing or incomplete
(especially given the changeover to a new upcoming kernel).
> > b) This wont make it into potato
> > c) By the time woody releases, we will be using 2.4.x, which has
> > up-to-date RAID code (see "b").
> Wouldn't all kernel related packages in woody be kind of pointless by this
> criteria ?
All the packages in woody are there because they are also in potato. Yours
would be different in that it is only in woody, and wouldn't stay there
for long, so the benefit is very little at this point.
> > d) It adds to the already confusing amount of kernel images, by adding yet
> > another maintainer to the group. Plus, who's to say what kernel options
> > you should have in your image (aside from the RAID options). Wouldn't
> > this be better to add to the kernel-source-2.2.14 so it is availabel to
> > all archs, and get's into the default kernel images?
> Could someone else in the kernel-image group maintain the package ? I was
> planning on using the options that are used on kernel-image-2.2.14.
As I said, this is more proper in the main kernel-source. The RAID code is
not arch specific, and it needs to be present in for all kernel images,
not just a specific set (each set of kernel images is built for a
particular arch, so it doesn't belong there). Even if it is packages
seperate, most kernel-patch packages of this sort do not build their own
It is up to you whether you package this of course, just voicing my
opinion, and I hope you take it at face value.
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` email@example.com -- firstname.lastname@example.org -- email@example.com '