Re: 2.6.12 in volatile?
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 08:57:59AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 11:35:12AM +0900, Horms wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 07:56:00AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > 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?
>
> The patch is just against /usr/share/kernel-package/rules. So, i suppose it
> should be supposed, with some hack, to use our own version of the rules file.
>
> > 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.
>
> Hehe, that is another option.
>
> But the sane option would just be to backport the needed fix, and be gone with
> it.
I agree. And given that only the rules file needs updating, as yo
explain above, it the next best option is probably just to supply a
patch to that and use a pached copy internally. My idea of internalising
kernel-package somehow appears to be overkill.
--
Horms
Reply to: