On Thu, September 15, 2016 7:16 pm, Ben Hutchings wrote: ... > > I'm open to the possibility of folding this into src:linux, if someone > in (or joining) the kernel team can take responsibility for maintaining > it. Now that all the userland tools are built from src:linux, it might > not be that hard to add UML.
There's a mini-team (Ritesh and me) taking care of UML today. What is the expectation for that someone? I'm willing to step forward, but I'm also aware I have limits in my availability. > There are a few issues I can immediately see: > > - UML binaries can't be built using the existing makefile rules for > linux-image packages, as they need different package names, > installation paths, and maintainer scripts. This would need entirely > new rules. > > - The current base config (debian/config/config) might not make any > sense for UML (but then, maybe all the irrelevant stuff will simply be > disabled automatically). Yes, these both need to be solved. To be fair I haven't had time to look into the specifics but that's what's next. > - I'm a little concerned about the possibility of build breakage in UML > that would then block everything else built from src:linux. Does UML > break often? I haven't been tracking RCs, but stable releases aren't giving many problems (a recent one was that then nvram module broke, but that's a case of a module that doesn't make sense for UML and shouldn't be enabled to start with). >From looking at the UML upstream mailing lists, there haven't been many big breakages in recent times. -- mattia :wq!