On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 13:13 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 05:32:58PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 21:28 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > > > However not this part. Only small commits are fixes and I consider the > > > rest as hacks. > > Which commits in particular? > > As documented: bcf16b6b4f34fb40a7aaf637947c7d3bce0be671, a merge commit. > > > Have you raised your concerns upstream? > > Which upstream?
I meant the upstream author of the commits in question. > > (or something equivalent). While these are clearly not suitable for > > upstream they are correct as far as they go. Excluding them from the xen > > flavour of the kernel seems a bit extreme. > > Someone have to explain them to the release team. As they are clearly > not even remotely suitable for upstream, I'm not going to stretch the > own rules further. I'm not sure these commits are measurably any different in the context of featureset=xen than pvops.patch already is but ultimately it is your call so I won't push it. > > It would be a terrible shame if Squeeze did not have support for the > > modern graphics subsystem when running Xen. > > Well. All the intel cards seems to work. That's good. Ian. -- Ian Campbell Current Noise: Iron Maiden - Dream Of Mirrors Domestic happiness and faithful friends. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
