Re: Sarge TODO items
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 12:00:07PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 06:30:24AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Well, it would just be a unified repository where all the kernels
> > packages would be held, and which would make migration of patches from
> > the arch packages to the common package more easy, provided a modern
> > revision system is used, i would prefer subversion myself, since it is
> > easier than arch.
> >
> > If i had to plan that, i would put the kernel-source tarball in it,
> > together with the debian dir for it, and then have one per arch
> > directory holding the whole kernel-patch-<arch> package. Once we have
> > that in place, and i doubt the wisdom of doing much beyond that before
> > the sarge release, we can start easily moving the patches to the common
> > package, and also try to streamline the config files, since we spoke
> > mostly of patches in this discussion, but the building of working
> > .configs is also one of the big challenges of per arch kernel packaging.
> >
> > This would beat having each per-arch kernel-patch to use its own
> > revision system in any case.
>
> I tend to basically agree with you. I'm not sure whether we should
> actually check in the upstream source, but that should really be a minor
Well, you can check in the compressed tarball, in order to be sure it
doesn't get lost or something. Less of a concern for kernel sources than
random assorted packages though.
> detail. The common .config bit is of course also important! I'd love
> to move the fragments infrastructure of the 2.6 kernel-patch-powerpc
> to the generic kernel.
Yep, Jens did a great job on this.
As for the revision system, i would vote for subversion over the more
complicated arch. Many projects are using it already, Branden's X
packages, debian-installer, the ocaml team, ...
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: