[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: New per subarch 2.4.22 powerpc kernels, please test.

On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 12:39:00PM +0200, Jens Schmalzing wrote:
> Hi,
> Sven Luther writes:
> > I am searching for testers for the new 2.4.22-2 serie of kernel
> > packages before uploading them to the archive, and potentially
> > breaking lot of stuff.
> Well, the kernel booted fine on all the Newworld Powermacs that I
> could get a hand on, which is probably not surprising - they are all a
> bit old and hence reasonably well-supported.  Want a list of models?

Ok, nice. Did it work fine with the kernel modules also ? It seems that
on oldworld, it was searching for /lib/modules/2.4.22-powerpc modules,
while the modules where in -powerpc-pmac. But then, maybe he was using
an older kernel or something such. You had not the same problem, did you
not ?

> > Remaining problems :
> > 
> >   1) Each kernel image still has a 8Mo or such copy of the
> >   modules. I wanted to separate them, but Manoj tells me this is not
> >   possible so near the sarge release, since it requires
> >   modifications of kernel-package, so it will be for later.
> Building a common modules package for all sub-archs sounds like a very
> good thing to do.  Just to get this right: You are probably aware that
> in order to achieve this now, you could simply bypass make-kpkg in
> debian/rules, like by doing one full build with make-kpkg and then
> several kernel-only builds with make or somesuch.  So are you saying
> that you would like to wait till this functionality is integrated into
> kernel-package?

Yep, i could be doing it manually all the way. But i don't feel this is
a good idea this near to sarge, and with 3 hours per build (down from
around 4 previously though) mistakes are expensive.

Once we have something working, and if there is time for it, i can
always look into that.

That said, my idea would be to simply postprocess the .deb creation
phase, removing the modules from the packages or something such.


Sven Luther

Reply to: