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

Re: split patches for kernel-patch-debian

On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 10:11:34PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 23 May 2004 20:57:01 +0200, Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org> said: 
> > On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 07:38:01PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >> Well, if I have a collections of patches and want to build a
> >> kernel-source package make-kpkg kernel_source sounds like the right
> >> tool to archive that, no?
> > BTW, while we're at it: Wouldn't now be a good time to check whether
> > we still need those kernel-source binary packages? That sounds soooo
> > 90s.
> 	There are a lot of people, especially in places like india,
>  who have access to binary CD's, but not to downloading the sources
>  over dial up.
> > Why don't we have the vanilla[1] kernel as .orig.tar.gz, the debian
> > build system as .diff.gz, and the needed patches either in the diff
> > as well, or as binary packages the kernel Build-Depends on (possibly
> > only for specific architectures). The kernel-images and -headers
> > would then be built as binary packages from that source
> > package. People who want to build their own kernels should know how
> > to run 'apt-get source' by now.
> 	There is something to be said about giving people the ability
>  to build kernel images from vanilla sources, from strange kernel
>  source lines, and so on -- and have these be the same quality as
>  packaged kernels.

BTW, Manoj, what is your thought on debconfifing the pre/post/inst/rm
script, this would be usefull for not having d-i bomb on the minor
glitch concerning those trying to ask questions or something.


Sven Luther

Reply to: