On Thu, 2016-09-15 at 20:55 +0200, Mattia Dongili wrote: > 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?
Maintain the configuration, investigate and fix build failures, that sort of thing. > 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. Good. Since we do upload release candidates to experimental, it might become necessary to fix build failures earlier. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part