Re: Minidisk support (was: Installation Question)
Stephen Powell wrote:
> My private e-mail sees the e-mail as coming from the poster, not from the
> list.
That's really the wrong way to look at it. Just look at the headers from
the mail: they clearly show that the mail was sent to you by the mailing
list software. It was delivered to you because *you* subscribed to the
list, not because *I* sent it to you.
Other mail clients (such as my own kmail) by default automatically reply to
the mailing list only. Your client probably has a "reply-to-list" option.
Note that different communities have different rules. For upstream kernel
mailing lists for example the policy is to CC everybody to whom the mail
you reply to was addressed.
> "Hijack" is a strong word.
In its original meaning: sure. But it's an accepted term in this context.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=thread+hijacking
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hijack+thread+mail&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
> I *did* ask the kernel team.
Yes, and I gave several reasons that could explain why they may not have
replied.
> Since upstream development has accepted this as a bug and has agreed to
> provide a fix in the next merge window, I respectfully request that
> this patch be included in the next stable release of Debian for s390
> (6.0.0 -- Squeeze). If you could include it in the next update of the
> stable release (5.0.4 -- Lenny), that would be good too.
Sure, but the core issue that your patch was at that time not accepted
upstream still stands. And in fact, the patch that's now included upstream
is rather different from your patch.
> Hmm. Starting with the top directory of the Debian archive,
>
> dists/squeeze/main/installer-s390/current
[...]
> etc. are all pointing to the Lenny version of the Debian installer.
> When the installer is used, either to install or in a rescue mode,
> this is the kernel that is running. It may *install* a newer kernel,
> when it is actually performing an install; but the kernel that is
> *running* comes from the image files listed above.
More confusion. The reason that still points to the Lenny version is that
there has not yet been a release (upload) of D-I for Squeeze [1]. The
images linked there are completely unusable to build CD images for Squeeze
(and even unusable to install Squeeze).
The only images relevant for Squeeze ATM are the "daily built" images
available from [2], and they use the 2.6.30 kernel udebs from unstable.
> And that's why I asked. I actually was trying to accomplish two things:
> (1) I thought that the primary maintainer for the s390 version of the
> Debian installer would be in a position to know whether the next point
> release (though I didn't call it that) was going to include an
> s390-specific update to something as basic as a DASD driver, and
Not if there's not a kernel update for Lenny that includes the fix first.
> (2) If
> you didn't know about the fix I wanted to make you were aware of it so
> that you would include the update to the installer kernel in the next
> point release.
As there is no separate installer kernel, that question is unanswerable.
>> The kernel team policy is to only include patches that already
>> have been accepted upstream or look certain to get included upstream
>> very soon.
>
> I figured as much. And that's why I mentioned that upstream had accepted
> it.
No, they accepted it as a *bug*. They did not accept your *patch*.
>> This patch is IMO more an enhancement than a bug fix, so I'm not certain
>> it qualifies for a stable update.
>
> I disagree. It's definitely a bug, not an enhancement.
Sure. But OTOH it adds support for a class of devices that is currently
effectively not supported. So even though the from a technical PoV it is a
bug, from a functional PoV it can be seen as an enhancement.
> The rest of the post is mostly about suggestions for how to get this into
> the 2.6.32 vs the 2.6.33 kernel. Thank you for the suggestions. I'll
> keep this information for future reference. But since nobody seems to
> care but me, I'm not sure it's worth it.
I think it *is* worth the effort to try to get the fix in 2.6.32, but
probably not in Lenny.
> If the kernel team had simply stated their policy for including
> updates in a stable point release in a reply to Debian bug report 550898,
> and telling me it did not qualify based on those criteria,
> they would have saved both of us a lot of time.
It is somewhat documented here:
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianKernelPatchAcceptanceGuidelines
Cheers,
FJP
[1] A D-I release is long overdue.
[2] http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/
Reply to: