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

Re: NMU: kernel

William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com> writes:
>> debian-devel and potentially any other fora considered to have an
>> interest in the changes (e.g. linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org) will be
>> informed of additional changes in direction, format, and so on beyond
>> the scope of the usual bugfix inclusions and upstream version updates.

On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 12:27:15PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> You are setting the Maintainer of the packages to the kernel
> mailinglist and the people below as uploaders, right?  Anybody
> intrested should subscribe to that ML.

Yes. This will affect only the packages used for i386 and alpha. The
others have maintainers besides Herbert Xu, but I would very much like
to coordinate with them, espeically in order to keep in line with my
aggressive mainline tracking goals.

William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com> writes:
>> Martin has informed me the layout of the team, as he would like it to
>> be, is as follows:
>> core:
>>  - lead: William Irwin <wli@holomorphy.com>
>>  - Al Viro <viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>
>> ports:
>>  - Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed.org> (PowerPC)
>>  - Dann Frazier <dannf@hp.com> (IA-64)
>> help:
>>  - GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp> (libc<->kernel interaction)
>>  - Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
>>  - Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> (PowerPC, as time permits)
>>  - Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org> (PowerPC, maybe, as time permits)

On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 12:27:15PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Excuseme asking, but what about all the other ports? What about
> Christian for m68k or Karsten and friends for mips/mipsel?
> Did the idea of gathering all architectures in one group to coordinate
> the kernel source go out the window?

No need for excuses. In my eyes, all architectures are on equal footing.
I would like to inspire a unified effort, regardless of the fact that it
may involve no specific change in direction, to elevate all architectures
to equal status and to make mainline work everywhere for 2.6. For 2.4 and
earlier kernels, of course, the divergent paths must remain (for reasons
I can explain in more detail upon request).

The list above is very certainly non-exhaustive. I would like to hear
feedback from the kernel maintainers for ports having their own kernels
so they can be listed as my equals, if not my betters, in the kernel
maintainership listings.

-- wli

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: