On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 08:57:59AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 11:35:12AM +0900, Horms wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 07:56:00AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > > The latter, according to volatile policy (... must be autobuildable > > > > from the same release...). > > > > Is that part of the policy intended preclude providing an update to > > kernel-package (or any other tool) that might be needed? It would > > be good to clarify that. > > > > > Well, in both cases it will not be, so pushing in kernel-package 9.005 > > > would be less work. And no, modifying linux-2.6 to use the sarge > > > kernel-package is not possible, which is why we fixed kernel-package. > > > > > > The other solution would be for the linux-2.6 build to check the > > > version of kernel-package, and apply a patch to fix the issue if the > > > one in sarge is found. > > > > I am not quite sure what you are getting at there. Patch kernel-package > > in place? > > The patch is just against /usr/share/kernel-package/rules. So, i suppose it > should be supposed, with some hack, to use our own version of the rules file. > > > Another solution I thought of would be to bundle kernel-package inside > > linux-2.6 (for volatile/sarge) somewhere. Though I am not sure > > how much surgery would be required to relocate kernel-package. > > Hehe, that is another option. > > But the sane option would just be to backport the needed fix, and be gone with > it.
I agree. And given that only the rules file needs updating, as yo explain above, it the next best option is probably just to supply a patch to that and use a pached copy internally. My idea of internalising kernel-package somehow appears to be overkill. -- Horms -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
