On Sat, 2011-04-23 at 21:00 +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Christian T. Steigies dixit: > > >As Geert wrote, almost all patches will make it into the official kernel > >tree, only m68k usually needs them a little sooner. > > OK, I’ve tracked down the patches that were indeed submitted, > added the SLUB workaround, and prepared another source package. > It’s currently building (cross, for speed of testing), but if > you like, you can review the patch I’d ask the Debian Kernel > Team to include later (if this works). My patch is based on > linux-2.6_2.6.38-3 since that’s what was in main when I began, > but should work against the scheduled -4, too. I’ve reduced > the number of patches to what I think is the minimum needed. You don't need to unset ECONET or X25 in debian/config/m68k/config; they are explicitly unset in the top-level config. > Some of the changes to debian/config/m68k/* were already in > sid/2.6.32 in Debian but not in what was trunk back then, so > I’ve re-added them. I think they come from Stephen Marenka. > > I don’t know how the ABI files are generated, there’s none for > m68k yet. Please tell me if I have to do something. [...] They are based on the Module.symvers files generated during a build and included in the linux-headers-* packages. They are added to the *next* version of the source package if we are intending to maintain the ABI, using debian/bin/abiupdate.py. If there has not been a successful build of kernel version '2.6.38-2' for m68k then there is no need to add them. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part