On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 02:43:36PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 02:22:33PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 09:23:52AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > > > Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > > > > This will break a lot packages depending on one of those, including but > > > > not limited to things like linux-kernel-di-hppa-2.6, pwc, > > > > user-mode-linux, kernel-headers-2.6-generic (alpha), etc etc. > > > > FWIW, u-m-l seems to still be unmaintained and not going anywhere fast. > > It should be removed from unstable if no one steps up to maintain it; it > needs to be repackaged more or less from scratch in order to migrate to 2.6 > and I will not be effecting that transition because I no longer use UML. >
It would be quite a shame to see it completely gone from sid; I find it comes in handy now and then. However, I'd have no desire to deal w/ the 2.4 version. For 2.6, instead of building it as an outside package, perhaps it should be an i386 subarch or flavour within the linux-2.6 package? It seems like it would be a better fit, as we could manage config options (keeping the global ones in sync even across uml), as well as trigger an automatic rebuild of uml easily for each new kernel upload (and security update!). If it needs additional patches that aren't compatible w/ other architectures, it would be a candidate for subarch inclusion; otherwise, it could just as easily be another i386 flavour (I believe the current linux-2.6 packaging supports the cross-compilation stuff necessary to override ARCH=um?). According to the sf uml page, past 2.6.9, a separate patch is not needed for uml. What about the skas patch, was a version of that ever merged into 2.6? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
