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

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

Sven Luther says:
Well, my experience in packaging powerpc kernels for debian tells me
that a single kernel source for all architectures may not always be in
the best interest, it depends on how it is handled and everything, but
i would be interested on how you plan to handle the powerpc/apus case,
whose patches are possibly not easily integrable with the remaining of
the powerpc patches, let alone the non-powerpc ones. Have you thought
about such things, before taking such an agressive stance on this

That might be true for unstable and/or experimental, but having dozens
of kernel packages simply *does not* work for stable. Unlike the people
you're criticizing for somehow stealing your thunder I'd actually
advocate not allowing any kernel into stable that didn't build against a
single central kernel package. Sure as hell your method will lead to
some architecture releasing a kernel that's 4 revs old at release day
and which nobody at all is interested in developing a security patch for
when a vulnerability comes along 3 years down the road. Maintainability
is harder than hacking shit together, but it's important if you actually
want to see a debian stable. Alternatively, if finding a *maintainable*
solution isn't a priority to you, you could simply make sure your kernel
stays in unstable.

Mike Stone

Reply to: