"Christian T. Steigies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 06:36:17PM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote: > > No, dude, it's just the exact same as README-Users.m4, just > > translated. It should be handled just the same. > > > > > Its impossible to upload this, since builds for other > > > arches will probably also have this file, for their special architecture. > > > > Eh? > What I mean is, it has to end up in one of the bf-* files since they have an > arch specific ending. I simply can not upload a README.pl file to incoming. > If powerpc uploaded on the same day, its rejected, since the m68k files > already exists WITH AN IDENTICAL NAME. The way I understood the bf, all files > which are to be uploaded shall end in one of the bf-*<arch> files. Right?
Ah! Ok -- this is a bug in release.sh I think. The file should be flying free and out there like that. > > > m68k: the mac people want to bump up their kernel to 2.2.16. When we > > > finally > > > receive the patches, we might be able to built 2.2.16 kernel images for > > > the > > > other architectures as well, until then we would have to use 2.2.16 for > > > mac > > > and 2.2.10 for everybody else, is it possible to do that for m68k (I think > > > Ive seen something similar for powerpc)? > > > > Sure, I think so. Just fudge around int he top-level Makefile. > > > > Are the kernels uploaded for Potato yet? > No, they are not even built yet... 2.2.16 is working on my amiga, I'd like > people with other machines to test it before we use it for boot-floppies. > These days you even have to build your own kernel-source_2.2.16, thats why > we (linux-m68k) are officially still at 2.2.10. Ok. > BTW, if I upload those images, we should also have a kernel-patch package, > but I did not see a kernel-source-2.2.16 package in debian. Oh -- ick. We got .15 and .17 but not .16. I guess you'd have to either upload or ask Xu to upload such a package. I would *hate* to ship boot-floppies requiring a kernel which cannot be built using sources in Potato. > > You are wanting to make Mac install disks for 2.2.10 as well as > > 2.2.16? This makes my heart sink. Is that really necessary? > I don't want it, the mac guys proposed that, since some machines do not work > well with 2.2.16. Some only work with 2.2.16, some like Penguin18, some only > work with Penguin17 and, oh I am sure some can only cope with 2.0.36. Its a > total mess and I am not really sure what to do without a debian/mac68k > maintainer. Ew. Well... with no maintainer, there is always the option to just leave it as it is and focus on the part of the port which has active support and maintainers. > I only wanted to hear that its not, I mean _how_ feasible it is. It's feasible, but it's a lot of work to add another flavor, not to mention the necessary documentation updates and such. > > > I think we want new kernel images (2.2.10) for amiga and atari anyway, how > > > much time do we have till 2.2.18 (hint for debian-68k: I need the patches > > > to > > > go in, without them I can not built kernel-images)? > > > > Christian, you should feel free to burn and release point versions for > > Mac at any time. Just tag/dpkg-buildpackage -uc -us/debsign then > > upload it. It's just a source upload rather than just a binary > > upload. > Argh, no, please not for mac. I don't have a mac, I work for m68k. I'd like > to keep it as simple as possible, thus one kernel-image version for all > subarches. If mac guys want very special things, they have to create a mac > maintainer... I meant to point out that any porters can do boot-floppies point releases if they need to. I'm not requiring that you do.... :) > > Thus we could have 2.2.18 on Tuesday (i386) then 2.2.19 on Friday > > (m68k) or whatever, it doesn't matter, integers are cheap and > > plentiful. I don't believe in making all ports wait for all other > > ports. > Yup, sure. Well, keep us updated. -- .....Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
