On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 01:11:20PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 01:14:13PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > Sven, any updates on talking to upstream about the pegasos changes? > > > > ... it could be in upstream. > > > > I don't like the via-ide hack not being included, it makes the machine > > unusable when a second ide disk is used. Did you tell me already where i > > should best ask about this ? LKML, or linux-ide-devel or something such ? > > No plans to remove it from Debian of course. [email protected] > is the list for IDE discussions there days. Given it's not purely an > IDE thing keeping linux-kernel on the thread sounds like a good idea. > > > > I'll work on a script now, still looking for someone whoe could help > > > on the packaging bits for a kernel-source-2.6.7 that uses split-patches. > > > > Why not use dpatch ? > > > > Works pretty well for other packages i handle myself. BAsically you have > > to modify the debian/rules to call the dpatch stuff (3 to 4 lines > > mostly) and then put all the patches in a debian/patches repository, and > > hae those you want applied listed in a 00list or something such file > > there. > > > > Works pretty well, don't think you can have per arch/subarch patch > > application though. > > I don't care at all how it's implemented in detail. I already mentioned > dpatch previous and cdbs and quilt. I want a way to get a kernel-source > package that uses split patches and otherwise is as little as possible > different from Herbert's packages. Who jumps in to help with the work > gets to choose the mechanism ;-)
If you already have the patches split, i will go ahead and implement the dpatch changes in the debian/rules file. Where is your being_worked_on 2.6.7 kernel-source package again ? Friendly, Sven Luther
