Re: 2.6.12 in volatile?
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 07:56:00AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 07:56:38AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 10:40:12AM +0900, Horms wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:40:16PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 10:43:22AM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, was there any decision whether to provide 2.6.8+security in
> > > > > > volatile, or just backport linux-2.6 (2.6.12)? I need to do
> > > > > > a 2.6.12 backport, so if people are wanting 2.6.12 for
> > > > > > volatile, I'll do that; however, if people want
> > > > > > 2.6.8+security in volatile, I'll just put 2.6.12 in
> > > > > > p.d.o/~dilinger, and make it known via apt-get.org.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've had reports of breakage with 2.6.12 and sarge which I
> > > > > > believe are related to udev, so we might need to keep that
> > > > > > updated as well. There is also some breakage with powerpc
> > > > > > and older versions of kernel-package; we'd need to determine
> > > > > > what's necessary for that (my tests on i386 w/ 2.6.12-1 went
> > > > > > just fine w/ the kernel-package that's in sarge).
> > > > >
> > > > > We need to backport kernel-package too, or i can submit a
> > > > > patch against the kernel-patch in sarge ?
> > > >
> > > > If we put 2.6.12 in volatile (sarge) then it should use the
> > > > unified packaging scheme, so we won't have to bother with
> > > > per-arch kernel-image/kernel-patch packages.
> > >
> > > Wrong, linux-2.6 needs at least version 9.005 of kernel-package.
> > > So either we backport it to sarge, or i provide a patch of the
> > > needed functionality for the version of kernel-package in sarge.
> >
> > The latter, according to volatile policy (... must be autobuildable
> > from the same release...).
Is that part of the policy intended preclude providing an update to
kernel-package (or any other tool) that might be needed? It would
be good to clarify that.
> Well, in both cases it will not be, so pushing in kernel-package 9.005
> would be less work. And no, modifying linux-2.6 to use the sarge
> kernel-package is not possible, which is why we fixed kernel-package.
>
> The other solution would be for the linux-2.6 build to check the
> version of kernel-package, and apply a patch to fix the issue if the
> one in sarge is found.
I am not quite sure what you are getting at there. Patch kernel-package
in place?
Another solution I thought of would be to bundle kernel-package inside
linux-2.6 (for volatile/sarge) somewhere. Though I am not sure
how much surgery would be required to relocate kernel-package.
--
Horms
Reply to: