On Sun, 20 Feb 2005, Ola Lundqvist wrote: > Hello > > On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 01:06:09PM -0600, Micah Anderson wrote: > > Package: kernel-patch-ctx > > Followup-For: Bug #277394 > > > > Some quotes from the linux-vserver mailing list on this subject: > > > > > I'd really like to see the official Debian packages updated and uploaded > > > w/ decent kernel-patch packages but unfortunately we still have > > > something of a stand off between the current Debian maintainer and > > > linux-vserver upstream regarding the state of linux-vserver and if it's > > > 'unstable' or 'stable'. > > > > > I thought this was being worked on and I'm a little disappointed at the > > > lack of comment from those who'd been working on it. > > > > > Is the current debian maintainer actually maintaining the > > > kernel-patch-ctx package at all? > > > > > The current version in unstable is still 1.29. > > > > > It seems like the vserver developement branch is misunderstood by the > > > people who decides what comes into unstable. It's like they think that > > > the vserver development branch is still in development (not finished) > > > and therefore not working. > > > > The 1.2 version of vservers pretty much everyone recommends against > > using, and instead recommend the 1.9 set. If you are concerned about > > putting 1.9 patches into Sarge, updating the package and then filing > > an RC bug against that version to keep it from going in is appropriate. > > > > What is the status of the updated tools and kernel patch? > > We are working on it. The util-vserver package have build problems on > some arches and before that is fixed I can not upload updated kernel patches.
I don't see why you cannot upload the updated kernel patches. The updated kernel patches work with the old utilities fine, although you cannot utilize the new features, it is completely backwards compatable. Additionally, I strongly suggest that the kernel-patch-ctx be renamed to kernel-patch-vserver as the vserver project, and the kernel patch has not been called "ctx" since the last release from Jacques, which was almost two years ago now. I am available to help sort out the build problems on other architectures, if you have a failed buildd log and a package I can see what I can do to help. > There are also some other issues as well but they are easier to fix. The > other problem is that the development branch is about to change and > debian will (hopefully soon) be released. I want a well tested vserver suite > in Debian instead of a very fresh one with potential lot of problems. I disagree about this statement. The 1.9.4 release is really stable and isn't anticipated to change radically for quite some time. Additionally, Debian's soon-to-be-released state does not matter at all. I understand you want to have a well tested vserver suite in Debian Sarge for freeze, that makes perfect sense. However, there is absolutely no reason that prohibits you from making the new version of these utilities available in unstable. You may be wondering how you keep these versions from going into Sarge, well that is simple, you file a grave bug against them indicating that you do not want it to enter Sarge. This has been done on a number of packages in the archive already, a common method for continuing to move on developing and providing the newer software *in unstable*, while the testing/sarge version stays at the stable one that you wish to provide when Sarge freezes. Micah
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
