Re: 2.6.4 kernel
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 06:10:58PM +0100, Jens Schmalzing wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sven Luther writes:
>
> > Why shouldn't they ? Mmm, i see why, they install into :
> >
> > /usr/src/kernel-patches/powerpc/debian-powerpc.diff.gz
> >
> > Do you think kernel-package would be ready to have it moved to :
> >
> > /usr/src/kernel-patches/powerpc/2.4.25/debian-powerpc.diff.gz
>
> Of course. The location of the patch is entirely up to the apply and
> unapply scripts, which you should generate with dh_installkpatches
And what about the apply/unapply patches ? I only cited the patch, but
the same problem happens with the rest of the patch stuff.
> from the dh-kpatches package anyway. Take a look at kernel-patch-xfs
> or the late kernel-patch-benh, both by Yours truly.
I will have a look at these packages, thanks for the hint. I didn't
touch those stuff since i took over the package from Dan.
> > Somehow i doubt it.
>
> > Why do you need to have them both installed ? because of the mol
> > modules you want to build ?
>
> Yep. I didn't really mind dropping support for 2.4.24 when 2.4.25
2.4.22 you mean, there was never an official debian 2.4.24 powerpc
kernel package.
> came out. I would hate to drop support for 2.4.25 when 2.6.4 comes
> out, though, and building is a lot easier if I can have both patches
> installed simultaneously.
Yeah, i understand.
> > I still think it would be nicer to build the mol modules directly from
> > the powerpc kernel package, but i understand why you prefer it the other
> > way around.
>
> You can have the mol-modules package when you pry it from my cold dead
> fingers.
Did we not decide you would co-maintain the powerpc kernels ?
> I *do* hope you come up with the correct answer to the above phrase.
>
> That said, the reason for keeping the pre-built mol modules in a
> source package separate from both the remainder of mol and the kernels
> is simple. The modules have to be rebuilt both when mol changes and
> when the kernels change. Both changes happened several times since we
> last talked about this.
Yeah, i know.
Still, the fact that you need to unpack the kernel again and configure
it is no nice, so the solution i propose would have been nicer.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: