I talked a little with Sven about the ppc kernel size in in context of
the modular FB discussion, and as a result I modularized the anslcd and
swim3 drivers (and ide-pmac but that patch doesn't work for the case of
other ide interfaces in the same system and needs more work), but I also
looked at
tags 258676 +upstream
thanks
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 03:06:48AM +0300, Shaul Karl wrote:
Package: kernel-source-2.6.7
Version: 2.6.7-2
Severity: normal
drivers/char/pcxx.c: In function `pcxe_cleanup':
drivers/char/pcxx.c:209: warning: unused variable `e2'
drivers/char/pcxx.c: In function
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 09:43:48AM +0200, Kilian Krause wrote:
So, do i see right that neither of VServer and SKAS (the UML patch) are
in the debian-kernel?
You're absolutely right. And you can be sure they won't get into the
Debian packtkit as long as I'm part of the kernel team..
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 12:29:44PM +0200, Kilian Krause wrote:
The description from kernel-patch-debian and kernel-image does not
list which patches are contained in the Debian diff. That way it's
pretty hard to evaluate which benefits are already provided by using the
debian kernel package
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 03:00:11PM +0200, Kilian Krause wrote:
You mean any of these two?
/usr/src/kernel-patches/all/2.6.7/debian/patch-2.6.7-1.bz2
/usr/src/kernel-patches/all/2.6.7/debian/patch-2.6.7-2.bz2
No, these are patches to generate the illusion that kernel-patch-debian
still works
close 257822
thanks
With CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO=y I get an initrd approximately 10x as large as
without, and the kernel won't use it. Full kernel messages to point
should follow soon.
43428 initrd.img-2.6.7-debug
4688initrd.img-2.6.7-nodebug
Don't do that, then. The help text for
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 04:33:09PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
I would like to get kernel-source-2.6.7-3 out tomorrow, if possible.
Does anyone have anything pressing that needs to go in before -3 is
released? I've spoken to luther (who wanted me to wait until tomorrow),
hch, and wli;
On Mon, Jul 05, 2004 at 07:57:01PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
Package: kernel
Severity: normal
To my understanding, kernel-headers are to be used in compiling
kernel modules. However, quite a few modules require
$KERNELSOURCE/drivers, others try to execute `make modules` in the
KSRC
On Sun, Jul 04, 2004 at 11:19:50AM +0200, Andre Tomt wrote:
Fix recently accepted into 2.6 mainline:
http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.6/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now alioth svn would have to come back from death so I could do anything
with the repository..
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 12:17:36AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
http://www.no-l.org/pages/cobalt-patch.html
At the above URL there is a patch against the Debian 2.6.6 kernel to support
Cobalt hardware. I have also uploaded a kernel patch package to Debian with
it. It seems to work OK, and
On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 09:55:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 05:29:38PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
There's a few reports against 2.4 kernel that are fixed in 2.6 and are
unlikely to get in 2.4 every (Examples: #146956 or #130217). How should
we deal with them
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 08:32:43AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Notice that Christoph did close this bug report without even bothering
to discuss this, thus taking the decision from the team and into his own
hands. Christoph, could you please justify your actions here ? They may
be right and all,
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 03:28:21AM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
He didn't close it; he tagged in +wontfix. He mentioned his reasoning
(the fact that there's userspace graphical boot screens), but it's not
apparent due to the way the BTS works. FYI, Christoph, people will
usually email
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 04:25:22PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, if you would go out of your x86-centric world, you would know that
half if not more of the architectures debian support _DON'T_ have text
console. You mean we should provide a null modem cable and a laptop with
every debian CD
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 10:43:20PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
The /dev/psaux situation seems to be a big mess. I added /dev/psaux
upstream long ago so I wouldn't have to change my XF86Config for 2.4
vs 2.6. In the meantime X can have two different input devices
specified and won't fail if
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 10:46:00PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Willian, could you enlighten us of the possible future standard that is
emerging for future kernels ? As well as how they will fit into this,
especially given the sarge release schedule which is again on track ?
What exactly does
Who talked about modularizing all fb drivers for all architectures. And
btw, many architectures have text-only firmware-based consoles that
allow early debugging (even long before any fb driver can take over
control)
And many powerpc subarches don't have, nor does m68k or sparc.
So
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 10:55:09PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
So what exact problems does the patch you propose solve? Which systems
don't boot/corrupt data/start nuclear wars without it? Do you
understand what exactly the patch does?
You have to ask Frederik about the exact
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 11:29:47PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
I don't quite like either of those. I'll try to take a look at the
X Code and/or talk to the X folks on whether we could fix X to autoprobe
for a corepointer.
I would rather fix it in the installed XF86Config file, so we have
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 10:57:00PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Yeah, in the meantime, i need to release a 2.4.26 kernel as there are
people clamoring for it, since the 2.4.25 has some security holes whose
fixes where not backported, and 2.6 is not considered stable by some
users yet (and if you
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 11:36:02PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, there's people dual-booting into both 2.4 and 2.6 kernels. I do
that myself, although on macs we've used /dev/input/mice in 2.4 already
anyway.
Becaue you had a usb keyboard.
Also, this is one of the reason i want to
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 11:17:47PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, you don't like the patch, and Herbert didn't, now, the question is
what about the functionality ? Do you also discard it because it is not
the one true way of kernel booting, or do you find it acceptable ?
As it's stated in the
There's a few reports against 2.4 kernel that are fixed in 2.6 and are
unlikely to get in 2.4 every (Examples: #146956 or #130217). How should
we deal with them in the BTS?
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 06:25:34PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
FYI, kernel-image-2.6.7-i386 builds fine w/ these kernel sources, as long
as CONFIG_SOFTWARE_SUSPEND=y (instead of 'm'; the modular swsusp patch is
broken for 2.6.7). If anyone's interested in the actual packages, I can
throw
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 01:43:06PM +0200, Jens Schmalzing wrote:
i added [..] the marvell driver to the svn repo,
Time for a subject change. We are talking about the following patch:
URL:http://www.theorie.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~jens/kernel-patch-powe
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 01:48:39PM +0200, Jens Schmalzing wrote:
Hi,
Sven Luther writes:
How about including this patch ?
This patch, by Julien Blache, can be found here:
URL:http://www.theorie.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~jens/kernel-patch-powe
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 02:18:36PM +0200, Jens Schmalzing wrote:
times if you omit the asfs patch from the others. Talking about the
asfs patch, any progress getting it accepted upstream?
I've done the first pass of review but haven't now that you remind me
I still have open question of the
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 03:11:01PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
http://svn.debian.org/viewcvs/kernel/kernel/2.6/powerpc/trunk/kernel-patch-powerpc-2.6.7-2.6.7/patches/powermac-beep.diff?view=markuprev=786
Can find anything bogus with it, although it doesn't speak for ALSA that
it's about
I talked to Herbert and he doesn't plan to maintain modular-swsusp
anymore, and given it's a huge maintaince overhead I'd like to drop it
from kernel-source.
I'd like to add 3ware's new SATA RAID driver that is in the upstream BK
tree now into kernel-source. the PATA 3ware cards have been a huge
success and I'd like to make sure we support them in Sarge.
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 02:26:08PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-06-23 15:21]:
I talked to Herbert and he doesn't plan to maintain modular-swsusp
anymore, and given it's a huge maintaince overhead I'd like to drop
it from kernel-source
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 02:27:36PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-06-23 15:22]:
I'd like to add 3ware's new SATA RAID driver that is in the upstream
BK tree now into kernel-source. the PATA 3ware cards have been a
huge success and I'd like
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 03:29:13PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Can find anything bogus with it, although it doesn't speak for ALSA that
it's about 10times as much code as the beep support I added to the
dmasound driver. But as Jens said please get it included upstream
first. If it's
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 07:08:06PM +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote:
Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
We don't give it 100% out of hand. We can still decide what to take and
what not. But I'm very much against patches where the authors haven't
even bothered to post them
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 09:42:46AM +0200, Jens Schmalzing wrote:
Hi,
Christoph Hellwig writes:
- I have done some more work on the split patches, especially added
lots of .dpatch commentary. I'll re-merged that with your
changes tomorrow
- the changelog should be much more
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 12:18:09AM +0200, Jens Schmalzing wrote:
Hi,
I've created preliminary kernel-source packages based on the 2.6.7
split patches created by Christoph. They can be found at
deb http://www.theorie.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~jens/kernel-source ./
Please check them out
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 10:57:27AM +0200, Jens Schmalzing wrote:
Hi,
Christoph Hellwig writes:
now that we're working with three people on this, we really need the
SVN repo up.
I'd rather say, we really need to upload a usable kernel-source
package to unstable. A svn repo would
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:30:41PM +0200, Jens Schmalzing wrote:
The preliminary packages can be found in the usual location,
deb http://www.theorie.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~jens/kernel-patch-powerpc ./
deb http://www.theorie.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~jens/mol-modules ./
Can you please split
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 01:25:49PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
I don't care at all how it's implemented in detail. I already mentioned
dpatch previous and cdbs and quilt. I want a way to get a kernel-source
package that uses split patches and otherwise is as little as possible
different
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 04:02:25PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
http://verein.lst.de/~hch/debian-2.6.7.tgz
Ok, i will see if i can make a package of it, but i would appreciate if
someone else review it before upload. Also, who is working on the
repository thingy ? Do we already have a
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 05:14:16PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Once that is done, the second step would be the creation of a subversion
or arch repo. If someone, like Manoj, feels like using arch would be
better, please create the initial repo, as well as some newbie
instructions on how to use
[Jens, did that mail not go to the list?]
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 05:16:21PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
1. kernel-source-2.6.7 should not be built as a Debian-native package,
mainly because this will generate a huge tarball for every Debian
revision.
Seconded
2. It would be nice if
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 05:34:19PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Ok, will do. But will the patches apply cleanly to a full tarball ? I
don't believe so.
All but the tg3 patch. But we can leeave that one out for now.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 10:25:26AM +0200, Jens Schmalzing wrote:
Hi,
Christoph Hellwig writes:
http://verein.lst.de/~hch/debian-2.6.7.tgz
has a crude forward port of the patches in the 2.6.6 package.
Thanks. Unfortunately, 00_drivers-net-tg3-readd
This one can't. It readds
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 02:29:56PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
pnpide_init has no args indeed. AFAIK subsequent section should be removed:
I don't think it should just be removed but rather reworked. I'll look
into it.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 04:09:44PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:17:28PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 02:29:56PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
pnpide_init has no args indeed. AFAIK subsequent section should be
removed
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 09:42:16PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 02:12:49PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
Now, if arch had a bitkeeper gateway ...
What would that do?
Well, not really be usefull in the current plan, which is to hold only
the debian part, but if there
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 11:46:55PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
apparently it's time to set off to the beach and rebuild that little
sandcastle of ours. Sven, can you please double-check the powerpc
patches? William, can you please let me know when kernel-source-2.6.7
becomes
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 06:46:26PM -0500, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
kernel with proprietary firmware to be a violation of their license.
Period. This is a fact: _Copyright holders of material Debian is
distributing believe we are doing so in violation of the license they
have granted us_.
On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 12:40:50AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
Hi all,
Apologies if this is something that people are already aware of. Since
I don't know the status of PTS handling and/or adoption for the
kernel-image and kernel-source packages, I thought it would be best to
post here
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 03:37:42PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Andrew Pollock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040610 09:40]:
Do we need to have three different RAID packages in sarge?
From the package description, it's only necessary for unpatched 2.2
kernels.
Given that we're trying to get
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 02:35:49AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 02:12:10AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
The 3ware patch looks bogus, most of the others got sent upstream at
least once before (sorry hch). Looks like I've been told which side bk
trees the
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 04:41:55AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
I'm putting some snapshots of my working versions at
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/wli/debian/2.6/2.6.7-rc3-mm2
-mm2? You don't want to actually release that, do you?
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 06:30:24AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, it would just be a unified repository where all the kernels
packages would be held, and which would make migration of patches from
the arch packages to the common package more easy, provided a modern
revision system is used, i
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 12:21:24PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, you can check in the compressed tarball, in order to be sure it
doesn't get lost or something. Less of a concern for kernel sources than
random assorted packages though.
OK..
detail. The common .config bit is of course also
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 12:46:18PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Fine with me. So let's create an alitoh project for the kernel, and a
subversion repo. Anyone is already looking into this ?
Ok, Martin?
For 2.2/2.4 let's follow his suggestion to not do any major changes,
let's just try to move
First time I see this wiki page. Comments:
new naming scheme getting rid of image as part or package names (only
for Provides: - compatibility issues), instead, distinguishing between
linux and hurd. First idea:
linux-kernel-source-KVERS
linux-kernel-KVERS-ARCH(-SUBVERS) (plus
We've been flaming^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdiscussing a lot of design items here,
but we should try to get up a list of items for to be done for sarge.
First priority for all sarge work should be to keep the maintaince
overhead for the security team down. That means in particular trying
to keep as few as
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 07:52:15AM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
* architecture support patches hard to apply unless the main
kernel-source
package is pristine
as mentioned a few times architecture packages should be part of the
main kernel-source to avoid a big maintaince mess
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 06:45:27PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 04:41:20PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
So when was the last s390-specific exploit you heard of? Or any
architecture-specific exploit?
Hmm, the ptrace exploit was only applicable on archs which uses
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 07:16:57PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 06:49:52PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
I don't think we should check the kernel tree into it. Just the debian/
directory.
If we want to handle patches, we need to that.
Umm, no. Patches should
Currently I can only see powerpc and some older ia64 patches in addition
to the basic kernel source, are there any other architectures working on
2.6 kernels?
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 08:21:42PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 07:50:22PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Currently I can only see powerpc and some older ia64 patches in addition
to the basic kernel source, are there any other architectures working on
2.6 kernels
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 09:46:50PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
I have been tracking the -benh tree for the powerpc 2.4 kernels, since
most people used that anyway. Benh has not updated this tree since
february though, and i don't forsee him working on this in the next two
month or so, so there
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 10:14:08PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
I'll merge it forward for you this wekk. I'll also talk to benh whether I
can check it into his BK repo.
Ok, fine with me, altough i still think that 2.6 makes more sense for
powerpc in the long run.
I completely agree.
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 10:48:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Known security problems ? All known problems of 2.4.25 have been fixed
and backported from later kernels, so i don't really see what we would
gain by going to 2.4.26, apart from uniformity over all arches.
I don't have the time right
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 10:42:43PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 10:48:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Known security problems ? All known problems of 2.4.25 have been fixed
and backported from later kernels, so i don't really see what we would
gain by going
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 11:41:03AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
I've uploaded a split of Herbert's last kernel-patch-debian into small
patches, each handling a particular change at
http://verein.lst.de/~hch/debian.tgz
New version uploaded. No changes in the split
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 02:29:18PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Any different than the ppc patch we have now ?
It wouldn't be in the default kernel-image.
Yeah, so you are going to massively duplicate the amount of kernel-image
available. I am not entirely sure this is the wisest thing to
On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 05:00:28PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
I oppose this. I will be working with the author to make it
upstream-worthy, but please give me one serious reason why it should be
kicked out of the powerpc patch set right now ? It may be of lesser
quality than it should, but it
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 01:42:47PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
Package: kernel-image
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Please consider
http://gaugusch.at/kernel.shtml
as a possible stock kernel patch to correct optionally on-fly broken ACPI
DSDTs.
A kernel-patch package could
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 04:45:39PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
magically belongs into kernel-image- for a single architecture.
Ah, but it is particularly those that complain about not cleanly
applicating patches, and i would say they have less priority than per
port patches and it is their
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 10:07:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I would be happy to incorporate any such patches into
kernel-package; preferably if we can keep the interface kernel
version agnostic.
At the very least, make-kpkg can do something like looking
for
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 09:17:38AM +0200, Jens Schmalzing wrote:
Hi,
Christoph Hellwig writes:
What's the problem with a single source package again?
A new upload will trigger the autobuilders and result in new
kernel-image packages for all architectures, even if the change only
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:57:37AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, it is a module, if you don't like it, don't use it. It has no
impact on anyone not having such file systems, but for those who have,
it provides a service that is quite important for them, and would be
missing if it were not
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 11:16:11AM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 09:40:16AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Especially for the slower architectures having done a compile with a
crosscompiler before the source package is handed to the buildd is very
important
What's the minimum required binutils version for ppc32 these days?
The debian kernel package ups it from 2.12.1 to 2.12.90.0.7, i.e. from
the first 2.12 maintaince release to one of hjl's later releases and
I wonder why it does that. Either it's bogus and should be be dropped
or we should up it
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 03:01:19PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Don't be ridicoulous. Out of tree modules should be avoided if possible,
not created artificially.
Huh? Out of tree modules are a _lot_ easier to deal with than a kernel
patch.
Also, I guess even if it is of dubious quality, i
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 03:02:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Anything else is a maintainance nightmare in the long term.
Sure, but it provides for localized testing before large scale
deployement later on.
Shouldn't a distribution kernel by production and not testing of random
changes?
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 03:53:51PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
For out of tree module writers, yes, but not as debian packages. Not all
out of tree modules adapt to 2.6 gracefully, and not all provide a clean
way for building with make-kpkg and produce a clean debian package.
Just doing make
Well, i am not a kernel expert. I believe i am an expert in debian
packaging though, which probably makes me today more adequate than you
to do the job.
Oh certainly. I have absolute no idea of debian-related packaging
issue, and as said above I don't want to take anyone's job away at all.
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 04:38:34PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, it is a nice tentative, but ppc needs still the pegasos patches,
as well as the apus ones, and it is a nice possibility to be able to add
stuff without really worrying about breaking stuff on non ppc arches.
except for an
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 11:27:35PM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
An Example:
Starting with 2.4.20, the mips cache code underwent major changes. This
broke the r4k-kn04 subarchitecture, and some of the r4k-ip22 machines.
Most of the latter were fixed relatively quickly, with improved
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 05:44:40PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
The via changes are almost guaranteed to break on x86. Any reason you
can't simply assign the irqs in the arch-specific pci fixups code so
the driver doesn't need to mess it? That's the way we usually deal
with broken
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 06:39:03PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Huh? I complained that you don't get out of your little
Well, sure, but you started making big plans about the new kernel
maintenance, without even bothering to find out who where the current
maintainers, and to include them in
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 06:42:32PM +0200, Jens Schmalzing wrote:
Hi,
Christoph Hellwig writes:
Feel free to send forward bugs for filled against your
kernel-image-powerpc forward upstream.
The serial driver hangs the Powermac G5.
The rivafb driver is totally broken (Bug#248134
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 06:43:55PM +0200, Jens Schmalzing wrote:
Hi,
Christoph Hellwig writes:
I've also tried to integrate it with the kernel-experimental
cdbs-based packaging, but it seems the build system tries to
outsmart me all the time so ? gave up..
Um, what's wrong
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 02:23:32PM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
I regard the linux-mips.org CVS as MIPS upstream, and I don't want to
handle patch conflicts with architectures I know nothing about.
Exactly that mentality is what I meant. Q.E.D.
I wish you good luck keeping your head in the
and with that I mean the existing maintainers should cooperate.
Indeed. But cooperation already exists. So far, it meant that
Herbert took the upstream source, prepared a kernel-source package,
and put it up on people.d.o for the other maintainers to download and
prepare their
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 10:00:25PM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
The real problem isn't the unified source tree, but how to create
kernels from it. A single debian source package for all architectures
means there is no way to keep an older version for one of them. So we
lose the flexibility to
201 - 290 of 290 matches
Mail list logo
