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

Re: [wli@holomorphy.com: Re: NMU: kernel]

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.


-- wli

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: