On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 01:46:24PM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Sven Luther wrote: > > | On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 08:35:03AM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto > | wrote: > | > |> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > |> > |> Hi everybody, ~ right last week i have been asked to merge the > |> linux-kernel-di-* packages directly into the kernel-source (that > |> in Ubuntu we call linux-source) so that all the different binary > |> packages are built from one and only one source. Basically > |> killing kernel-image packages (that was done a few months back) > |> and now linux-kernel-di-* > |> > |> The resulting diff of the merge (based on our linux-source) can > |> be found here: > | > | > | You can do this in ubuntu only because you have only 2-3 arches to > | worry about, > > The model can be adapted. I am not pushing a patch to force our > solution, but to give back the code that has been done and tested. > It is up to the 2 teams to decide what to do with it. > Clearly applying it to 11 arch is technically possible, it of course > require more coordinations between people, and that is something > nobody can give you with a patch ;)
Well, sure, i was wondering about two things though : 1) the below mentioned technical problems, but you may have worked around this, not sure though. 2) a little change to the powerpc or x86 kernel will mean a full rebuild for m68k or arm too, right ? Maybe not an issue for pure udebs things though. > | and are thus not limited by the number of packages the packaging > | tools can handle, right ? > > Nope.. the list of binaries that are generated per each arch is > still relatively small. > > The control files grows in 2 directions: > > - - the first one is static due to merging the different kernel-image-* > ~ into one source, but you still generate the arch specific packages > ~ so the others are simply ignored. Which may be a hindrance to keep kernels in sync in the debian case. > - - the second one is slightly more dynamic and it involves the addition > ~ of the udebs to the control file at build time, but they are still > arch specific. > > So at the end you get nothing more than what you had before, just from the > same source. Which i was led to believe that the packaging tools could not cope with 6 month or so ago. Maybe i am wrong though ? > If you look at our pool for linux-source, you will see that the > binaries are nothing > more than what was before in the 3 splitted once. 3 is way less than 12 + the bunch of 2.6 kernels though. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
