On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 01:13:46AM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote: > On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 02:43:36PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > It should be removed from unstable if no one steps up to maintain it; it > > needs to be repackaged more or less from scratch in order to migrate to 2.6 > > and I will not be effecting that transition because I no longer use UML. > > It would be quite a shame to see it completely gone from sid; I find it > comes in handy now and then. However, I'd have no desire to deal w/ the > 2.4 version. For 2.6, instead of building it as an outside package, > perhaps it should be an i386 subarch or flavour within the linux-2.6 > package? It seems like it would > be a better fit, as we could manage config options (keeping the global > ones in sync even across uml), as well as trigger an automatic rebuild > of uml easily for each new kernel upload (and security update!).
That sounds great. > If it needs additional patches that aren't compatible w/ other > architectures, it would be a candidate for subarch inclusion; otherwise, > it could just as easily be another i386 flavour (I believe the current > linux-2.6 packaging supports the cross-compilation stuff necessary to > override ARCH=um?). I think that UML is targeting generic kernel trees these days, such that you should be able to build a UML kernel or a standard kernel regardless of applying UML-specific patches. > According to the sf uml page, past 2.6.9, a separate patch is not needed > for uml. Correct, the only patches are updates to the UML arch. > What about the skas patch, was a version of that ever merged into 2.6? I'm not sure; skas3 was explicitly rejected, and skas4 was intended as a new design which satisfied the kernel maintainers' requirements. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
