Re: Announcing powerpc backport 2.6.12-6 kernel package for sarge
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 11:00:56AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 04:50:33PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 09:36:50PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I have made available backport packages of the linux-2.6 common kernels for
> > > powerpc for sarge. You will find all that is needed at :
> > >
> > > http://people.debian.org/~luther/kernel
> > >
> > > or the apt source :
> > >
> > > deb http://people.debian.org/~luther/kernel ./
> > >
> > > These packages include :
> > >
> > > 1) backported kernel-package, to be able to build the powerpc 2.6.12 kernels.
> > >
> > > 2) backported udev, which is needed for 2.6.12 and beyond kernels. I
> > > disabled the selinux support though, as it is not present in sarge.
> > >
> > > 3) backported 32bit powerpc kernel packages. These are exactly the same as
> > > the sid/etch ones (2.6.12-6), but i was forced to disable the 64bit
> > > powerpc64 version, since there is no biarch toolchain in sarge. That said,
> > > installing the sid/etch kernels would have worked just fine, so if you are a
> > > 64bit user, please download linux-image-2.6-12-powerpc64 from etch/sid by
> > > hand.
> > >
> > > Ok, i hope you all enjoy those.
> >
> > I am currently doing a build of these on i386, and will
> > make them available when they are ready, hopefully in the next
> > few hours.
> >
> > One thing I am wondering is if it makes sense
> > to make the kernel-package build dependancy as follows,
> > as it would allow the package to be built on a vanilla
> > sarge for non-powerpc arches.
> >
> > kernel-package (>= 8.135) [!powerpc] | kernel-package (>= 8.135.sarge1) [powerpc]
>
> I did another change, but maybe it was not needed, so i think the above is a
> safe bet. If it builds for you, i will try it locallly.
Actually, I ended up installing your package, as it was easeir than
working out how to get pbuilder to build a modified source.
I'll finish that build and then try again.
--
Horms
Reply to: