Re: Status of kernel patch packages
- To: Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk>
- Cc: Yann Dirson <ydirson@free.fr>, Hideki Yamane <henrich@debian.or.jp>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org, srivasta@debian.org, maistoast@gmail.com, stigge@antcom.de, fst@debian.org, marcus@better.se, gcs@debian.hu, pkg-lustre-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org, opal@debian.org, edelhard@debian.org, pkg-vsquare-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Status of kernel patch packages
- From: Yann Dirson <dirson@debian.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 23:37:05 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20100323223705.GA11672@nan92-1-81-57-214-146.fbx.proxad.net>
- In-reply-to: <20100321105700.GS8106@nan92-1-81-57-214-146.fbx.proxad.net>
- References: <20100320141459.GQ8106@nan92-1-81-57-214-146.fbx.proxad.net> <[🔎] 20100321001722.46742b9a.henrich@debian.or.jp> <20100320162833.GR8106@nan92-1-81-57-214-146.fbx.proxad.net> <[🔎] 20100320163900.GE31824@jones.dk> <20100321105700.GS8106@nan92-1-81-57-214-146.fbx.proxad.net>
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 11:57:01AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 05:39:00PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 05:28:33PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> > >On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 12:17:22AM +0900, Hideki Yamane wrote:
> > >>On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 15:14:59 +0100
> > >>Yann Dirson <ydirson@free.fr> wrote:
> > >>> So the question is, is it time to request removal of those >
> > >>packages, or is there any remaining reason not to do so that I >
> > >>missed ?
> > >>
> > >> As linux-patch-tomoyo1.7 package maintainer, tomoyo is merged
> > >>with mainline, but it's not fully featured one yet. At least, I
> > >>want to provide it with squeeze.
> > >>
> > >> and hope kernel-package would enable patch support again... ;)
> > >
> > >I won't speak for Manoj here, but I feel we should think about
> > >other ways to provide those patches.
> > >
> > >One way could be simply to provide ensure those patches in some
> > >git tree, that users can easily fetch and merge before running
> > >make-kpkg.
> >
> > Lots of possibilities arise if we do not constrain ourselves to the
> > Debian ideal of a fully self-contained distribution usable while
> > offline.
> >
> > I happen to like that ideal, also for kernel patches.
>
> I don't think there is a contradiction - eg. it could make sense to
> ship a kernel repository in a package, and similarly for kernel
> patches referencing the former as a (local) remote.
Let's maybe stay focussed on the initial problem: we *had* a way to
handle kernel patches as part of a self-contained distribution, but
there is no support for this any more. Moreover that support we had
was not 100% satisfactory (eg. bad handling of conflicting patches
needing manual merge - although that was something I wanted to address
in the never-finished dh-kpatches 0.100). My idea is to rethink the
whole thing using today's tools - namely, git.
Anyway, to get back to the initial problem of the current linux-patch
packages, we currently still have patches in the distro, which were
packaged for a mechanism that is not to be shipped in squeeze (and
referencing that obsolete mechanism in their /usr/share/doc/), and
this in itself is a problem of quality of the overal distro, right ?
Reply to: