On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 01:11:00PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > Sven Luther wrote: > > For the installer, sure, but the generation of the d-i kernel .udebs is only > > marginally of their relevance, and furthermore they don't want the > > responsability associated with it, and as proof i can show you that joeyh > > upgraded kernel-wedge and the x86 d-i module udebs, but didn't touch all the > > other architectures, defaulting it upto the porters, which are the exact > > same > > guys doing the kernel packages. So joeyh and fjp can't have it both way. > > Um, I maintain kernel-wedge and linux-kernel-di-i386*. Not having access > to every other architecture out there, and with some of the
There is absolutely no need for any architecture access to simply repackage the modules into an .udeb. Absolutely no need. > architectures that I do have access to suffering from unaddressed kernel > bugs (ie #332962) that make my hardware for them useless for testing new > d-i releases, as well as being limited to modem speeds, makes it > difficult to maintain anything more. So, what do you think d-i is so special that it deserve special attention, and should not fall in the common case of debian kernel bugs ? Maybe you will in the future start building your own kernels too ? It is just damn repackaging, nobody asks you to test anything at all. > If you take a closer look at the commits in question, my changes were > limited to kernel-wedge, which means the maintainers for other arches > benefit from them. Probably the packages for other architectures can be > updated with just a rebuild and simple testing, although it can be very this has not been the case in the past, and you should simply have rebuilt and uploaded them or something. > hard to tell, since what hardware is common on which architectures, and > thus which udebs it should go into, is not always easy to determine if Indeed, which is why it is not needed to duplicate that process twice, once when the kernel port maintainer choses which config option to include and which not, and twice when you chose to include those modules in the .udebs or not. > you're not intamately familiar with the architecture. Which is a good > reason to have maintainers who are, instead of me. None, except for modules concerning the powerpc64 hypervisor and virtual scsi stuff, of the upgrades that i did for powerpc since the sarge release needed that kind of intimate knowledge. And all the changes i did, where mirrored on x86 or something, and i lost maybe 2 hours or so each time time which i could have spent doing useful work. > Saying that this means I lack responsibility and am only interested in > taking the easy way out is, again, insulting. <plonk> No, but you cannot deny that both you and Franz have been ranting against the porters not taking their duty seriously in the past, and this is one area where you could make their time more worthwhile, but chose not to. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]