Stefan Kisdaroczi wrote: > On 19.08.2010 17:28, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >> Yes, I know that. And this makes me wonder how Roland generated the >> patches for 2.5.4, since his script is identical to ours. >> > > The patch generating worked without obvious problems and the patches > apply cleanly. But the patched kernels are failing to build if > CONFIG_XENOMAI is set on kernels 2.6.33+. As debian squeeze will ship > with a 2.6.32 kernel he probably just tested 2.6.32 and this worked. > > There is also a chance that he didn't test to build a xenomai patched > kernel at all, as the important thing was to have 2.5.4 uploaded before > the squeeze-freeze and that no release-critical bugs are filed until the > package migration from unstable to testing. You released 2.5.4 the 2.8., > he uploaded 4.8., freeze was 6.8. and the package migrated to testing > the 15.8. He already has a upload permission from the > debian-release-team for a bugfix-upload of xenomai. He really is doing a > very good job. Yes, I remember the discussion you had last winter about > 2.4.x, but for debian the most important is to have the latest possible > upstream version uploaded just before freeze, and he succeeded.
Oh boy, this was a genuine question, I was not attempting any critics of any kind... I was impressed that 2.5.4 made it to squeeze. > > For a bad maintaining example look at Ubuntu. I filed a bugreport the > 22.3.2010: > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xenomai/+bug/544284 > No response, no upload, nothing, still xenomai 2.4.8... And Ubuntu is > debian unstable based, so they only have to sync. > This is probably the reason for all those 'building packages for Ubuntu > 10.04'-questions on this list. If Ubuntu would ship a newer version the > beginners could directly introduce themselves with the 'Why do i get > negative latency values?'-question :-) No comment. I had to use Ubuntu for some time, and did not like it. > >>> If we move the prepare-patch.sh out of the debian/ dir (suggested by >>> Roland), that would not be necessary. >>> >>> I suggest to move debian/prepare-patch.sh to >>> scripts/prepare-debian-patch.sh. >>> I'll create a patch if you agree. >>> >> I do not understand how changing the script location or name remove the >> duplication between this script and prepare-kernel.sh. We fixed the >> issue with the location of ipipe.h in prepare-kernel.sh ages ago, so, as >> far as I understand, the bug comes from this duplication. >> >> I really think the good idea is to implement the functionality of >> prepare-patch.sh (i.e. being able to generate a patch without the kernel >> sources) into prepare-kernel.sh --outpatch command, and simply make >> prepare-patch.sh call prepare-kernel, this would end all the duplication >> between the two scripts. >> > > ok, as you said above it's 'non-trivial' but on the other side we are > not in a hurry. Ok. I will try and have a look at modifying prepare-kernel.sh, probably this week-end. When done, I will let someone else (probably you ?) modify prepare-patch.sh. In the meantime, I will merge the patch you sent which fixes prepare-patch.sh, and the other one which moves prepare-patch.sh. -- Gilles. _______________________________________________ Xenomai-help mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-help
