Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!
Hi, thanks the good maintenance by Herbert,
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 08:12:43AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Andreas Metzler <ametzler@downhill.at.eu.org> wrote:
> > martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org> wrote:
> > What I'd really like to hear is a reaction from Herbert to:
> > Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org> in <20030921222634.GB964@aokiconsulting.com>
> > | Can your patch file to be more modular like X package? It is a big
> > | chunk.
> >
> > Which could make both sides happy. Instead of one big patch containing
> > bugfixes, security fixes and feature additions to make them separately
> > available in the kernel-source-package.
>
> Again this is something that I have already stated my position on.
> This is simply unmaintainable due to the complex relationships between
> patches.
Interesting :-)
My use of word "modular" may have mislead you as I see above.
Just to avoid confusion:
1) I like default kernel get good maintenance including IPsec if
the expert Herbert Xu decides to do so. (No argument here from me.)
2) I was not suggesting very fine grained "modular" patch for each issues.
I was expecting something like 3-4 stage patches.
* 1st big patch: cramfs etc. which are essential to be Debian kernel
* 2nd big patch: basic bug fixes. (No feature change, something you
may have got from upstream pre release patch.)
* 3rd big patch: basic feature fix. (IPsec and all others which is
generally good and nice for most users.)
* 4th big patch: Whatever you did at last minutes :-)
The order of above is not essential for me. It should apply clean
though.
> In any case, the kernel-source package's README file should contain all
> the information you need to extract any particular patch that you're
> interested in.
If you make your patch somewhat more split into "staged" manner (yes, I
am not asking "modular"), then it is easier for specialty patch
maintenance become easy. After all those specialty patch user may no
need features needed by most user but he certainly expects having cramfs
and other standard features of Debian.
If you claim making simple 3-4 stage patch maintenance "unmaintainable
due to the complex relationships between patches", it is certainly
unmaintainable for other "patch" package maintainer or any one try to
apply patch to keep up with you.
I know you maintain position that other patch maintainer can do 1st and
2nd stage patch himself using vanilla source after unpatch. But, to me,
it is waisted resources. I did not understand why you want to document
how you build package only in the text of documentation but not in
source package itself.
Cheers,
Osamu
PS: I once wanted to apply ACPI patch and hit similar issues as Martin.
It was too much for me and I gave up :-(
Now Debian version of kernel is 2.4.21 and I am happy.
Reply to: