On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:11:49 +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > Andres Salomon wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm going to suggest renaming our 2.6.12 source package from >> linux-kernel-2.6.12 to linux-kernel-2.6. Thoughts? Dann Frazier and I >> have discussed this on IRC a little bit, and come up w/ the following >> points.. >> >> * Source: linux-kernel-2.6, Version: 2.6.12-1 >> * As long as each arch is in synch, there are no GPL issues with older >> binary packages being in the archive w/out the source. >> * Nicer for bugs; http://packages.qa.debian.org/l/linux-kernel-2.6.html >> gets us all bugs for 2.6.12+ kernels, versus having to look at >> linux-kernel-2.6.12.html, linux-kernel-2.6.13.html, etc. >> * Older kernels get removed; no need to ask for manual removal of >> linux-kernel-2.6.12 after 2.6.13 becomes available for all archs. >> However, we lose the ability to have multiple 2.6's in a release, >> which sounds like a win to me; we shouldn't be doing multiple 2.6 >> releases anymore anyways, the security team has made it clear they >> don't want to support multiple kernels, and it would be extra pressure >> for all archs to keep up. > > This makes it unlikely to ever get working mips/mipsel kernels in the > single source package. >
Perhaps you could give a reason why this is the case? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
