Re: kernel-sources
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Bastian Blank wrote:
>...
> > You will notice that most other distros do the same. RedHat and SuSE
> > distribute _heavily_ patched kernels, for example. Debian's is actually
> > quite light as far as patches go.
>
> but they also include vanilla kernelsources
You don't want to use vanilla sources of the 2.4 kernels - look at the
Debian changelog of the kernel-source-* packages and tell me which of the
patches aren't really needed.
> > > I don't think that every patch maintainer has to modify his patches to
> > > be compatible with the GNU/herbert kernel, right?
> > Wrong. They do. If it is too much of a bother for a maintainer, he should
> > orphan the package -- he doesn't care enough about that particular package
> > to maintain it IMHO. Do it right, and integrate it well with the rest of
> > Debian, or do not do it at all; again IMHO.
>
> the kernelpatch maintainer can only make their work if they can track
> the changes and see that they doesn't interfer with it patches.
> also this is almost impossible for security patches like openwall
> because they patch files near by the core.
1. Does e.g. a "Fixed a typo in Documentation/sound/OPL3-SA" interfer with
openwall?
2. Look at the Debian-diff and you'll see all the changes - and you can
use e.g. interdiff to see _exactly_ what changed between two
kernel-source-* packages.
> must we really include a kernel-source-upstream-* because one maintainer
> can't write changelog entries?
1. A 100% unpatched kernel-source-2.4.* package wouldn't help anyone
because such a package would currently be too buggy.
2. My experience is that Herbert is very responsive when someone makes
suggestions that sound reasonable.
> bastian
cu
Adrian
--
Get my GPG key: finger bunk@debian.org | gpg --import
Fingerprint: B29C E71E FE19 6755 5C8A 84D4 99FC EA98 4F12 B400
Reply to: