On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 06:30:24AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > Well, it would just be a unified repository where all the kernels > packages would be held, and which would make migration of patches from > the arch packages to the common package more easy, provided a modern > revision system is used, i would prefer subversion myself, since it is > easier than arch. > > If i had to plan that, i would put the kernel-source tarball in it, > together with the debian dir for it, and then have one per arch > directory holding the whole kernel-patch-<arch> package. Once we have > that in place, and i doubt the wisdom of doing much beyond that before > the sarge release, we can start easily moving the patches to the common > package, and also try to streamline the config files, since we spoke > mostly of patches in this discussion, but the building of working > .configs is also one of the big challenges of per arch kernel packaging. > > This would beat having each per-arch kernel-patch to use its own > revision system in any case.
I tend to basically agree with you. I'm not sure whether we should actually check in the upstream source, but that should really be a minor detail. The common .config bit is of course also important! I'd love to move the fragments infrastructure of the 2.6 kernel-patch-powerpc to the generic kernel.
