On 2014-12-07, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Sun, 2014-12-07 at 11:15 +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: >> On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 12:24:55AM +0000, peter green wrote: ... >> > Currently i'm aware of three ways of building deb packaged kernels. >> > >> > 1: modify the Debian "linux" source package >> > 2: use make deb-pkg >> > 3: use make-kpkg >> > >> > Option 1 can be made to work and probablly gives the closest >> > experiance to kernels actually from Debian but it's a PITA, >> > especially if there are a large number of changes from the source >> > tree Debian uses. We do produce kernel package from a mashup of the >> > Debian "linux" source package and the raspberry pi foundation's git >> > tree but they are a pain to update and so tend to be updated far >> > less frequently than the raspberry pi foundation's kernels. >> Once you worked a bit with the kernel source package it's quite nice. >> OK, it's a big and complicated package because it generates a big amount >> of architecture specific packages, but for the complexity it handles >> it's really nice (IMHO). >> >> I'd go for this option, > > FWIW so would I. I'd expect 90% of the work it be "just" replacing > debian/patches and debian/config with Raspbian specific stuff (where > debian/patches might be nearly empty or one big megapatch resynching > with the Pi-foundations releases, depending on how that upstream works). Last year I helped with the initial work to get that going for the 3.2 kernel, based off of the kernel source package in wheezy. But even though the patchset from the raspberry pi foundation side of things for 3.2.x wasn't changing much (if at all), the security and point release updates requires a fair bit of work to keep in sync. I'm not sure how ugly the diff is with newer series kernels, I'd like to think a platform as mature as the raspberry pi would be focused on resolving mainline support by now. Some patches have definitely made their way to mainline, identifying which are left and targeting them, and/or building kernels without *all* the features needed might help reduce the maintenance burden. The only long-term sanity-saving approach really seems to be mainlining the needed patches... live well, vagrant
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature