"Andrey Borzenkov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There are several questions here ... > > - no, I do not work together with either of them. Juan did not reply > to any of my mails the past several months so I assume he is just too > busy and I do not bother him anymore.
Ok. > - it is up to respective maintainers to evaluate changes and decide. > I tried to make them as non-intrusive as possible, but regression is > always possible. At least gkrellm patch has been accepted by author :) As for myself, mkinitrd seems non-intrusive enough to be accepted as well. But the reason for me to be mkinitrd maintainer is not so clear/logical, since I'm not a kernel guy. It was done originally when I had to choose some packages to maintain, because I knew and used mkinitrd on my RH box before joining mdk, that's all :). But currently, we don't have enough kernel guys so I think they can't maintain one more package anyway. > - yes, I think, they shoud be uploaded. First, here is clear interest > in 2.5 now and it is in quite usable state (this or that driver may > be broken, but core appears to work). Second, and it is the main > reason - we do need experience and testing and it needs time. There > are many things that need clarification. Please remember devfs - > it took for over a year and two releases before it was put in some > usable shape. I'm asking myself if it would not be good to add a "hackkernel2.5" in contrib? > - finally, it all depends on Mandrakesoft policy. If you (meaning > Mandrakesoft) intend to ship 2.5 with next release - not as main > kernel of course, but as alternative - we must start to evaluate > what is needed to support it as soon as possible. My RPMs are just > bare minimum - someone has to inegrate 2.5 support into drakx, > and that is hard work, and there are a lot of applications needing > updating/patching. I have no idea about that. Frederic Lepied in CC should be able to answer that question. >From the top of my head, I think alternatives for 9.2 are: 1- ignore 2.5 (well that's already not really the case, module-init-tools being in cooker) 2- provide a 2.5 in contrib but call it "hackkernel2.5" and don't allow installing it from the install, so that it's clear it's bleeding not supported stuff 3- provide a 2.5 in cooker and allow installing it from the install (probably not as default boot image) Since 9.2 is to be frozen mid-august maybe (2) is the best solution? > And yes, I think next release should include support for 2.5. At this > time given the development rate it should be near to final form. Ah, ok. > That said - I do use those RPMs for myself, I will continue to > work on them, but I have almost reached my limits - they do work for me > so unless I will get feedback I do not have anything really important > to change ... (I do have some plans :) Ok. -- Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
