Re: [wli@holomorphy.com: Re: NMU: kernel]
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 06:14:55PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Sven Luther (sven.luther@wanadoo.fr) [040524 18:10]:
> > On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 05:26:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * Sven Luther (sven.luther@wanadoo.fr) [040524 16:10]:
> > > > On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 09:42:46AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> > > > > > Given that everyone extremly dislikes the single source package scheme
> > >
> > > > > Well, if you're taking a poll, count me in favor of single source
> > > > > package.
> > >
> > > > Single source packages are nice, but not practical in the debian case. I
> > > > guess you will have uploads multiplied by 12 or so compared to today, if
> > > > you want to keep the reactivity that is possible today.
> > >
> > > Well, even if it is not possible to do a single source package, we
> > > should IMHO really be able to reduce the number of source packages in
> > > sarge to 0-1 for 2.2, 2 for 2.4 and 2 for 2.6. Of course, this means
> > > major work after we decided which kernel version should be released
> > > with, but I really think it's worth, because it makes it much easier
> > > for the security team.
>
> > Yes, i agree with you, but this is fully orthogonal to what is currently
> > discussed here, at least this is how i understand this.
>
> Then I either didn't understand the discussion, or wrote my proposal
> in a wrong way.
The discussion right now is not about having one or more versions of the
kernel, but that for a given version number, there should be one
kernel-source package only which builds all the per arch kernel-images,
or have once kernel-source only, and have a per arch patch on top of it
(possibly empty or nearly so) responsible for setting the the flavours
(.config files) used on that arch, and responding to bug report about
that arch, which then builds its own set of kernel-image packages from
it.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: