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

Re: [jblache@debian.org: Re: [PATCH 2.6] Add back beep support to snd-powermac]



On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 02:18:36PM +0200, Jens Schmalzing wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Sven Luther writes:
> 
> > Huge ?
> 
> Yes, huge.  Twice the size of the other patches combined.  Twenty
> times if you omit the asfs patch from the others.  Talking about the
> asfs patch, any progress getting it accepted upstream?  Any reason why
> it should not be promoted to kernel-source in the meantime?

I don't know, i think it would be the prerogative of the patch author to
do so, and i would not submit upstream at least until the patch author
dropped the beta from the version number. Now, moving it to
kernel-source would be no problem with me, but i would not do it unless
i uploaded a kernel-source including it previously to removing it from
the kernel-patch-powerpc package. Technically, you should be able to
move the 

We need to find a good method for moving patches around. Maybe there
could be a file containing all the patch names in the kernel-source, and
the per port kernel-patches should check this file before applying
patches or something. Or maybe a notion of patch-set applied, so that if
the patch is contained in two packages at the same time, it get only
applied once.

And BTW, use svn mv to move it, in order to not lose svn history on the
file (well, not important now, since there scarcely is an history to
it).

> > It is a full gigabit ethernet driver, what did you expect ? 
> 
> In any case I did not expect to see a full gigabit ethernet driver
> appear in an arch specific patch.

Why not, local testing first, if it doesn't break and work fine, you
propagate it to the higher level. Less chance of problems this way.

> > Well, it should be powerpc & mips only,
> 
> Then it definitely belongs in kernel-source until it is accepted upstream.

Nope. It will not work on mips right now, so it should stay in the
powerpc patch for now.

> > Well, ok, the idea behind it is to not upload a package by mistake
> > while it has not yet been blessed.
> 
> As you wish.  I don't really care.  Either way, it's hard to upload
> something by mistake if it takes more than an hour to build.

You have a point, let's keep it like this then, unless someone else
disagrees.

> [...]
> > You are supposed o use dch -a anyway to add a new entry, which would set
> > also the last modification entry correctly and such.
> 
> I will definitely continue using emacs for editing changelogs.

:)

> > But maybe we should discuss this more broadely.
> [...]
> 
> No we shouldn't.  It's not worth it.  Just add whatever changelog
> entries you like, but do mark them with your name (which you didn't).

Well, then let's do it like the other packages are doing it. Unless
someone else disagrees here. 

> > BTW, where you able to boot kernels whose image was generated with
> > version 3.1-pre2-1 of module-init-tools (the one in unstable)
> > installed ?
> 
> No, but I submitted a patch to the BTS that made it into 3.1-pre2-2.

Cool. That would be #254950, right ? Mmm, i see pre2-2 even made it to
the archive now.

> > It fails here because of missing /etc/modprobe.conf.
> 
> That message is spurious, I also submitted a patch for that, but it's
> pending upload.

Ok. 

Friendly,

Sven Luther



Reply to: