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:
> Hi,
>
> 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
> deal.
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.
Ok, cool.
> > 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
march 15.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: