Christoph Hellwig wrote: > [snip] >> My package is my castel, oh how wonderful. Without giving up one the >> I need my own base package mentality debian's kernel package won't >> go anywehre. I've always wondered why the Debian X maintainers can >> maintain a single sourcebase for all architectures, although their >> upstream is completely uninterested in most of the porting changes >> while for the kernel everyone has too cook their own soup. On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 02:05:12PM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > Because they have a single upstream, while the kernel has several > for all the architectures. I understand and very fully that this is the case for 2.4 and that that can't be changed. What is different is 2.6, which has made a concerted effort to work on all architectures that should be supported, and potentially even some that shouldn't. An important thing to clarify is that this does not eliminate arch maintainers. It doesn't even try to. What it means is that arch maintainers can get the changes they need for mainline to work merged. The way this works is that is when arch maintainers discover issues, the fixes for them can be sent upstream with relatively good likelihood of inclusion. The effect I would like this to have is as follows: (a) arch maintainer has some patch to resolve arch issue (b) patch gets sent upstream (c) next time arch maintainer updates, mainline has the patch It is my ideal to follow a similar model for all kernel patches debian should care to devise. Thanks. -- wli
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature