Re: Maintaining kernel source in sarge
On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 04:29:13AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Sun, 25 May 2003 04:18, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 07:55:08PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Some m68k architectures might be a hard, I agree. But having a package
> > > that works on as many machines as possible would be very cool.
> >
> > well, I there is a shared debian-kernel cvs then all architecture
> > maintainers can commit, and the package can be build for those who are
> > ready. This might generate a autobuilder and testing-transition problem :(
>
> The problem here is when architecture specific patches require patches to core
> code. If we have a single kernel source tree that everyone commits to then
> it will be changing daily, it will be difficult to determine what source was
> used to compile a particular kernel (and getting two kernels compiled from
> the same source will be a neat trick).
>
> I think that the thing to do is to have a base kernel source package that is
> the standard Linus tree plus fixes that are really important. That means
> security fixes, fixes to file systems to fix data-loss issues, etc. The VM
> fix for 2.4.20 which stops machines with 4G of RAM from choking under load
> would be a border-line case.
Why not have a standard linus tree + a set of security fix patches + a
per arch arch specific patch.
This would have the advantage of easily isolating the security patches
from the other stuff, and make work easier for people of the different
arches to check if they would cause problems or not on their arch.
Ideally, the security patches could even be isolated for each problem
they solve, a bit like the patches to the xfree86 package Branden has
been using all this time.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: