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

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

William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> 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.
> 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.

This is surely a nice thing if it actually works. However, the 2.4
reality suggests the 2.6 maintenance cycle won't reach that ideal.

I'd like to have some fallback in case (non-mainline ready)
arch-specific patches turn out to be necessary.

I'd also like to have a way to do a minor change (like a .config
option) without triggering a new kernel package to be rebuilt on
all architectures.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: