On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 15:17 -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 09:30:07AM +1100, Christopher James Halse Rogers > wrote: > > > I'd agree. Plus it'll be easier to explain "we're carrying 2.4.18 minus > > > patch foo". > > > > > > Which is the commit(s) that needs reverted? > > > > libdrm would need b496c63143e9a4ca02011582329bce2df99d9b7c and I think > > also 88e8a8bbaf026aa10225880001ab7ca1c392168a reverted. > > Wow, that first one is definitely a pretty significant api bump! > > > If we're comfortable with pulling from the nouveau kernel tree[1] for > > linux-backports-modules-nouveau, then going over the API bump would > > indeed make cherry-picking and backporting fixes easier. The API bump > > hasn't made it out of that tree yet, as far as I'm aware. > > Hrm, that kind of sucks. But it does seem like digesting the change now > would be easier than getting painted into a corner and have to pull it > in post-release or something messy like that. > > However, maybe it'd make sense to let the kernel drm 2.6.33 backporting > stuff get settled out first? So put in libdrm 2.4.18 without these two > patches for alpha-3 so we'll have the fixes for testers, and then after > a3 is out do the API update?
That would be fine. It would require a DDX update, as there have been more #define renames in libdrm since the snapshot we currently have was cut, but this is only a build-time requirement, not a runtime problem. We need a new upload of the DDX anyway, to fix the linux-backports-modules-nouveau depends (which currently point to linux-backports-modules-nouveau-2.6.32-12-generic), and possibly work out where the initramfs hook goes.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Ubuntu-x mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-x
