On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 06:19:21AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > Maybe more interesting would be a list of all those arches and subarches who > still have problems with 2.6, and a list of issues, so people with > interest to work on them, can help out.
Yes, I think both are interesting and could crosslink. This page would list the packages that need go be removed, and a terse explanation of why they need to stay. The terse explanation could include a link to a page that has more details about what the problems are. Both would be very good to announce broadly (hopefully by piggybacking on a release team update) so that people know what work is needed. Personally, the way I'd prefer to track this is to file a bug for removal of each of these packages now, but somehow mark them as "on hold". For example: Bug #X: "ftp.d.o: Please remove kernel-image-2.4-apus from sid/etch" Bug #Y: "d-i: stop using kernel-image-2.4-apus" Bug #Z: "linux-2.6: Add support for apus" Where bug Y blocks bug X. However, I imagine the ftp masters wouldn't appreciate us filing bugs that we don't want them to fix yet. > This could also be doubled in a list of issues which are debian specific > patches also, and not yet merged upstream, with some kind of plan or eta or > whatever for such a merge. Sure. I don't have any insight into the existing problems (other than indirectly based on what you, Thiemo & Martin have mentioned here). So I'm probably not the best person to start such a page. By the way, sorry for the crudeness of that wiki page; I had to leave before I finished cleaning it up & figured I'd just commit it first. -- dann frazier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
