On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 04:55:42PM +0300, Horms wrote: > On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 12:39:55PM +0300, Andres Salomon wrote: > > Alright folks, I think the packaging is ready to be beaten on by people. > > So, unless anyone has any concerns/problems/etc, I'm going to assume > > everything's a go for uploading 2.6.12. > > Excellent > > > The current changes and state of the packaging: > > - source package is called linux-2.6 > > - binary image packages have been renamed from kernel-image-* to > > linux-image-*. binary header packages have been renamed from > > kernel-headers-* to linux-headers-*. kfreebsd/hurd folks, if you have > > any comments/concerns/requirements, please be sure to let us know. > > - debian/control is generated from debian/templates/control.*.in, and > > naming/descriptions should be consistent across the various archs. > > - config files are generated from the pieces in debian/arch, with > > management of configs made a lot easier via tools in trunk/scripts > > (initconfig and split-config). I will probably tweak settings for > > the global config a bit more; expect some FTBFS for architectures > > until we figure out which options are safe for everyone, and which > > options are suitable only for certain archs. > > - i'm leaning towards using gcc-3.3, as i'm afraid of gcc-4.0 > > miscompiling things. however, if any architectures require gcc-4.0, > > either let me know, or update svn directly. > > How are you planing to do that. > I need to do something about the fact that users go and > grab kernel-source-2.4.27 and it doesn't compile with the > default gcc any more. Here are three solutions I have thought. > > 1. Document this somewhere > 2. Change the makefile to default to gcc-3.3 > 3. Change the makefile to print out a nice error if gcc version >=4.0 4. ask for removal of 2.4.27 from etch/sid :)
Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
