Re: volatile backport
On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 08:07:40AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 01:28:01AM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > I'm working on a backport of linux-2.6 for volatile; the goal is to not
> > have it require any further backports.
>
> As discussed on irc, this is useless non-sense. The new kernel-package is
> needed on powerpc, and the alternative is to split off a standalone
> kernel-patch-powerpc-2.6.12 again.
>
> Simply upload my backported kernel-package to stable-proposed-update, but then
> we can also upload our backported kernels to it and simply ignore the whole
> volatile thingy, which altough it seems like a useful and neat idea, is in
> practice hardly worth it, as can be shown by the utter lack of content of it.
If we don't expect the package to enter sarge this sounds like an
abuse of t-p-u just to get around the rules of volatile.
Ok, on the subject, having all these queues is just a big band-aid
to the real problem that the flow from unstable to testing and
particularly to stable does not reach the need of users. Lets fix
that and stop mucking around with extra apt-sources.
> Anyway, what we probably need is a kernel-specific sarge+ archive, which can
> benefit from the volatile autobuild infrastructure, and which can we used for
> building stuff from sarge and itself.
>
> Then we can put all the needed packages in it, like udev, initramfs/yaird and
> a newer kernel-package. People would thrust this one more than a random idea
> of volatile with too rigid rules just because they have no overview of what
> will be going in it or not.
>
> > My current patch is attached; I need to figure out what was actually added
> > to kernel-package wrt mkvmlinuz that powerpc might need. Is there any other
> > arch-specific stuff that I might be missing, also? I still need to test it
> > out against the udev that's in sarge.
>
> You need to remove powerpc64 from the arch/powerpc/defines, but this will also
> mean dropping support for power(3|4)[-smp] flavours present in sarge. Not sure
> if there is any kind of meaningful way to have a toolchain backport which
> would enable the biarch kernels though. Altough i guess building the kernel
> with non-sarge toolchain will not have any cascadingconsequences.
>
> Friendly,
>
> Sven Luther
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
--
Horms
Reply to: