On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 11:20:29PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Horms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > We seem to be running around in circles here. If an image package > > depends on kernel-tree-x.y.z-N, then kernel-source-x.y.z can be > > updated and the image can still be rebuilt, verbatim. > > > > Let me try and illustrate by example: > > > > * kernel-source-2.6.8 version 2.6.8-1 is released > > * kernel-image-2.6.8-i386 version 2.6.8-1 is released with a dependancy > > on kernel-tree-2.6.8-1 > > * kernel-source-2.6.8 version 2.6.8-2 is released > > * kernel-image-2.6.8-i386 is not updated, but can still be rebuilt > > using kernel-source-2.6.8 version 2.6.8-1 or version 2.6.8-2 > > > > Now, if di could use the kernel-tree dependancies, then > > kernel-source can be updated and the di images can still be rebuilt. > > > > -- > > Horms > > But that all went out the window with the linux-2.6 source upload. > > Now it is linux-2.6 version 2.6.12-1 getting replaced by 2.6.13-1 and > kernel-tree-2.6.12-1 is repalced by kernel-tree-2.6.13-1. No more > 2.6.12 source for the images.
Yes, that would obviously be a problem, though this might be solvable by coordinating upgrading the upstream version between the kernel and d-i teams. Upstream movement is unlikely to occur close to release, and Franz Pop already mentioned that nightly builds were acceptable for most other times. > And D-I does not have a depends or build-depends on the tree anyway as > it downloads the precompiled debs, unpacks them and repack them > differently as udebs. > > > The best and only solution sofar is to megre the > linux-kernel-di-<arch> udebs into the linux-2.6 package and get them > build directly when the source is compiled. I tend to aggree, though I believe Franz Pop, or perhaps some of the other d-i team members have reason for keeping these images separate. Perhaps they could reiterate them here. -- Horms -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
