On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 01:34:22PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote: > On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 19:24 +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 01:25:31PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote: > [...] > > > > > > Alright, I think I'm a fan of #2. The module maintainers upload their > > > packages to sid, with the binary package <module>-source in there. We > > > have a package called linux-external-modules that build-deps on all the > > > -source packages, and builds packages based upon them. The infrastructure > > > would be similar to the linux-2.6 package; gencontrol.py creates a huge > > > control file that lists each module (perhaps getting this list from the > > > build-dep list). This would look something like > > > > Problem with this would be that any -source breaking might mean breaking it > > all. > > That's why we test! ;) > > Anyways, it wouldn't break all, it would break all for a single > architecture. But yes, we would have to be pretty dynamic with what we > actually provide in terms of the modules, and apply pressure to -source > maintainers to fix FTBFS issues.
What if the maintainers of those modules are MIA or otherwise unresponsive ? I would go for that only for out-of-tree modules that are hosted on either our kernel svn repo, or on a new kernel-modules svn repo (if we are afraid of giving commit rights to everyone). Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
