Re: OpenVZ - deb-packages
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 02:00:28PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Dmitry E. Oboukhov wrote:
> > I need OpenVZ 2.6.27 with ppp-features available. I was on the
> > point of building the package, but I am not very good in building
> > of kernels and the current openvz is built somehow strange:
> > apt-get source linux-image-2.6.26-2-openvz-686 gets an src-package
> > with no mentions of openvz in debian/control in it.
>
> Kernel packages are special:
> http://wiki.debian.org/HowToRebuildAnOfficialDebianKernelPackage
>
> > 1. Have I understood correctly that openvz doesn't have its own Source
> > in Debian now and it is simply added/removed from linux-source as the
> > need arises? How should I act and with whom should I communicate if I
> > want to add something to the package?
>
> The main source is the linux-2.6 source package. You should talk to its
> maintainers (people reachable on debian-kernel@lists.debian.org).
>
> > 2. May be somebody has already built openvz 2.6.27 (with ppp-features).
> > Could You share the link on repository?
>
> I have built a 2.6.26 openvz kernel with the ppp support (a single
> supplementary patch):
>
> The patch on the source package:
> https://svn.ac-grenoble.fr/svn/slis/slis/sources/trunk/backports/patches/linux-2.6_2.6.26-15~slis41+1.patch
>
> The source package:
> http://ftp.slis.fr/slis/pool/main/l/linux-2.6/linux-2.6_2.6.26-15~slis41+1.dsc
>
> The binary package:
> http://ftp.slis.fr/slis/pool/main/l/linux-2.6/linux-image-2.6.26-slis.1-openvz-686_2.6.26-15~slis41+1_i386.deb
>
> I would like this patch to be added in a point release update given it's
> only a supplementary feature in the -openvz kernel and should not disturb
> anything else. But it's not in line with the traditional stable update
> policy so I did not bother to propose it up to now.
>
> Dann, what's your stance on this ?
I'm taking care of openvz, please file a bug report with severity
important including the patch or link to patch, so that it can be added.
if it does not break ABI it is easiest to add to next stable release,
if it does i'll add it to the queued ABI breaking patches.
did you test that?
thanks + kind regards
--
maks
Reply to: