Re: [wli@holomorphy.com: Re: NMU: kernel]
> > Again, i, as the pegasos upstream and the
> > powerpc kernel maintainer, take the responsability for this, so i
> > believe it is ok for inclusion in the debian powerpc kernel package. I
>
> You abuse your position as powerpc kernel maintainer to get your
> pet patches in without proper review.
I wouldn't be as harsh as Christoph here but I do agree on the
principle. I have a long experience of dealing diverging kernel trees
and beleive me, that's not a path we want to go through. Even if we
decide to keep per-arch kernel packages, we should at least do the
maximum to have all patches in a single upstream source and keep local
what is strictly necessary.
Anything else is a maintainance nightmare in the long term.
> > Yes, i agree with that, altough i somewhat disagree with your way of
> > clasifying the patches. I think it is a good thing to have one or more
> > patches in a arch specific patch, be it for localized testing before a
> > wider usage, or because the patch, in despite of not being arch specific
> > is of restricted use outside that arch.
>
> Any difference of sources between architectures is a maintaince pain.
> How do you explain people syscall foo works strange on architecture one
> but not architecture 2 because of strange patches?
>
> How do you easily make sure new Architecture: all patches don't break
> a large per-arch patch later? Why does the orinoc driver do snooping
> on ppc and not others? Why is asfs part of the ppc kernel but not other
> so I can't read the amiga disks on my PC?
Yah, among others...
Ben.
Reply to: