Re: 2.4.25-1 debian kernel available based on -ben1 tree, G5 tester wanted.
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 04:53:47PM +0100, Jens Schmalzing wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
> > > I noticed a mol-modules-2.4.25-powerpc package there.
> > It is an unofficial package, which i usually provide for the pegasos
> > folk, which are not really able to build them themselves,
> I see. That's okay by me then. Still, I wonder whether the package
> is really necessary with my packages in Debian proper, and a
> synchronized upload would be nice no matter what.
The repository is only there until the NEW queue gets resolved, and i
started doing this before i knew of your packages, and before you fixed
them to work with something else than the -pmac version.
> > The main problem is that building modules from the headers doesn't
> > seem to quite work, which is something i need to fix.
> Plain and simple, building from the headers only will never work for
> the current build structure of mol.
Yeah, which is why i thought of the idea below. It should work for alsa
and the other modules though.
> > I was thinking about having a list of modules (alsa, mol, etc ...) which
> > we could build directly from the kernel package, so there would be no
> > need to rebuild the kernel from sources as you currently do,
> > What do you think of it ?
> It's probably better to keep the pre-packaged modules in a separate
> source package, mainly because they need to be rebuilt against new
> releases of both the kernel and mol. And I do *not* rebuild the
> kernel, but only unpack and depend the source tree. This is not a big
Well, the idea was to build them at the same time as the kernel, so we
already have the unpacked, configured and built tree available. It was
just an idea though.
> > BTW, what about -power3 and -power4 ?
> Done, and uploaded.
> > If you want, we can upload it to :
> > http://people.debian.org/~luther/powerpc/current
> > or something, and have this be an unofficial repo for packages uploaded
> > to the NEW queue or something ?
> Frankly, I don't like the idea of having repositories for the sole
> purpose of working around the waiting time in queues. I agree they
> are nice for testing new packages, but so are sid and sarge.
Well, the problem is that altough i hope it will go quickly now,
2.4.22-2 and up took almost two month to enter the archive. This way i
get feebdack quickly, and can fix things immediately.
Until the NEW queue handling will not be changed to handle false-new
packages with due diligence, i see no other way to get things going.
And i would like the 2.4.25 packages to be used in the d-i beta3 due