William Lee Irwin III wrote: [snip] > 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. [snip] > 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. Thiemo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature