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

Re: 2.6.12 upload

On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 12:39:55PM +0300, Andres Salomon wrote:
> Alright folks, I think the packaging is ready to be beaten on by people. 
> So, unless anyone has any concerns/problems/etc, I'm going to assume
> everything's a go for uploading 2.6.12.


> The current changes and state of the packaging:
>   - source package is called linux-2.6
>   - binary image packages have been renamed from kernel-image-* to
>     linux-image-*.  binary header packages have been renamed from
>     kernel-headers-* to linux-headers-*.  kfreebsd/hurd folks, if you have
>     any comments/concerns/requirements, please be sure to let us know.
>   - debian/control is generated from debian/templates/control.*.in, and
>     naming/descriptions should be consistent across the various archs.
>   - config files are generated from the pieces in debian/arch, with
>     management of configs made a lot easier via tools in trunk/scripts
>     (initconfig and split-config).  I will probably tweak settings for
>     the global config a bit more; expect some FTBFS for architectures
>     until we figure out which options are safe for everyone, and which
>     options are suitable only for certain archs.
>   - i'm leaning towards using gcc-3.3, as i'm afraid of gcc-4.0
>     miscompiling things.  however, if any architectures require gcc-4.0,
>     either let me know, or update svn directly.

How are you planing to do that.
I need to do something about the fact that users go and
grab kernel-source-2.4.27 and it doesn't compile with the
default gcc any more. Here are three solutions I have thought.

1. Document this somewhere
2. Change the makefile to default to gcc-3.3
3. Change the makefile to print out a nice error if gcc version >=4.0

In all cases it seems it would be good to recommend gcc-3.3.

>   - debian/README* and trunks/docs/ has information that kernel team
>     members will find useful to understand the new packaging.
>   - there are 3 patches that were in 2.6.11 that have been dropped due to
>     lack of interest; sparc, alpha, and powerpc folks should determine
>     their value, at some point.
> Hm, anything I'm forgetting?
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org


Reply to: