Marek Buras <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 09:20:13PM +0100, Sam Geeraerts wrote: > > Great minds think alike. I've been doing the same and missed your > email > > between hacking and stuffing my face. Luckily our solutions are very > > much alike, so it must be right. The only real difference is that I > > modified debian/control via debian/templates/control.source.in. > Kernel > > packages are fussy that way. > > > > 8-) I saw your comments under the bug report yesterday and learned yet > another > new thing about packaging the kernel. However there is still a lot to > learn > before I'll be able to "close" #37522, which really bothers me. This > #37522 is > important for me because network installation will be impossible in my > environment (currently it's possible, because installer uses kernel > version > which have support for 8169)
Its a common chipset, hopefully you can bully it in to line :) > > I also added a short README.gNewSense. This can serve as a quick > > reference for users and developers about the diff between Debian and > > gNewSense instead of having to look through the changelog. I noticed > I > > haven't done that for all packages yet. > > > > Do you mean all packages for the kernel or all recent gNewSense > packages? If > it's the latter, I can go through (at least) all packages I was > involed with > and add this file (if that helps or make things easier for you). Ideally all packages we change would have one (and I guess all that we create; though iirc we have something doco'd about that). I don't know if we have a template for README.gNewSense but it would probably be worth having a template in our wiki with a few example headings to get people on the right track which can be referenced by our packaging documents. thanks kk _______________________________________________ gNewSense-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-dev
