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

Re: powerpc kernel-patch 2.6.6-5 in incoming since over a month !!!

On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:24:03AM +0200, Jens Schmalzing wrote:
> Hi,
> Sven Luther writes:
> > Again history repeats itself, and the new powerpc kernel packages
> > are now held captive in the incoming queue for nearly (if not
> > already more) than one month.
> All three pending revisions entered unstable this morning.

Ok, cool. Not sure if this would have happened anyway, or if my mail was
part of it. But in general, this is something that is not acceptable,
and i hope never happens again. One week is still long for this sort of
things, but acceptable, but one month is definitively to long.

I will send you a USB uhci fi later today, as well as a subarch building
stuff. Mmm, about that, let's discuss this.

basically, one could use the postinst_hook to call a little script which
calls itself mkvmlinuz.

Now, the question is, how do we automatically add the postinst_hook to
kernel-img.conf, which package would provide the script, and where do we
test for when it is needfull to generate such a file.

My idea would be to have the mkvmlinuz provide the script, have the
script test for architectures which needs to generate the mkvmlinuz
kernel (well, only chrp-pegasos right now, since chrp would mostly use
yaboot, and prep is not yet supported, or did you change that recently).

Alternatively, we could just call mkvmlinuz for all subarches, and not
worry about this, maybe it would be easier.

Finally, how do we add the postinst_hook to the kernel-img.conf file,
and how do we react if there is already such a variable in that conf
file ?

> Ironically, I got the message just after kicking off the first
> preliminary 2.6.7 builds.  But that's how it goes.

Well, 2.6.7 packages would be cool, especially since they fix a security
bug, and thus should replace the 2.6.6 kernels quickly enough, but then
they will probably sit in the NEW queue for another month or so :/.


Sven Luther

Reply to: