Re: [frankie@debian.org: Status of kernel-patches in sarge]
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 12:19:11PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > I'd expect maintainers drop patches which are orphaned by the upstream > > or whose maintainance would be a problem... > > The number of patches that do not apply shown in the initial message of > this thread shows that your expectation is wrong. > ... well, of course after pointing the issue for them :-) -- Francesco P. Lovergine -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [frankie@debian.org: Status of kernel-patches in sarge]
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 10:02:06PM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote: > On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 12:35:59AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 10:04:02AM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote: > > > > > The check shown below is almost complete (but for a couple of 2.2 patches > > > and per-arch patches). > > > I'm asking if mass bug report filing is opportune at this stage. > > > IMHO patches which cannot be applied to debian kernel-sources are almost > > > unuseful and should be removed from sarge... > > >... > > > > I'd even ask whether all these patches are _really_ required for sarge. > > > > Eh eh, maybe that could be ask for quite a lot of packages around in sarge :-) > > > Each of the patches might be broken by a security update for the > > kernel and each of them requires security support. > > > > I'd expect maintainers drop patches which are orphaned by the upstream > or whose maintainance would be a problem... The number of patches that do not apply shown in the initial message of this thread shows that your expectation is wrong. > Francesco P. Lovergine cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [frankie@debian.org: Status of kernel-patches in sarge]
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 12:35:59AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 10:04:02AM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote: > > > The check shown below is almost complete (but for a couple of 2.2 patches > > and per-arch patches). > > I'm asking if mass bug report filing is opportune at this stage. > > IMHO patches which cannot be applied to debian kernel-sources are almost > > unuseful and should be removed from sarge... > >... > > I'd even ask whether all these patches are _really_ required for sarge. > Eh eh, maybe that could be ask for quite a lot of packages around in sarge :-) > Each of the patches might be broken by a security update for the > kernel and each of them requires security support. > I'd expect maintainers drop patches which are orphaned by the upstream or whose maintainance would be a problem... -- Francesco P. Lovergine -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [frankie@debian.org: Status of kernel-patches in sarge]
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 12:40:26AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 10:04:02AM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
> > The check shown below is almost complete (but for a couple of 2.2 patches
> > and per-arch patches).
> > I'm asking if mass bug report filing is opportune at this stage.
> > IMHO patches which cannot be applied to debian kernel-sources are almost
> > unuseful and should be removed from sarge...
>
> I think this is a reasonable thing to do, and the sooner, the better. I
> would suggest filing the bugs as grave ("package is unusable or mostly so").
> If a maintainer disagrees and believes the patch is still useful in sarge,
> he can downgrade (hopefully with an explanation, so we know how to tell in
> the future that the package is still fulfilling its purpose). Any of these
> patches whose maintainers don't speak up for them can then be pulled before
> we release.
>
Yes, this appears reasonable to me.
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [frankie@debian.org: Status of kernel-patches in sarge]
On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 10:04:02AM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
> The check shown below is almost complete (but for a couple of 2.2 patches
> and per-arch patches).
> I'm asking if mass bug report filing is opportune at this stage.
> IMHO patches which cannot be applied to debian kernel-sources are almost
> unuseful and should be removed from sarge...
I think this is a reasonable thing to do, and the sooner, the better. I
would suggest filing the bugs as grave ("package is unusable or mostly so").
If a maintainer disagrees and believes the patch is still useful in sarge,
he can downgrade (hopefully with an explanation, so we know how to tell in
the future that the package is still fulfilling its purpose). Any of these
patches whose maintainers don't speak up for them can then be pulled before
we release.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
> - Forwarded message from Francesco Paolo Lovergine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> -
>
> Old-Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: Francesco Paolo Lovergine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: debian-kernel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Status of kernel-patches in sarge
> Mail-Followup-To: debian-kernel@lists.debian.org
>
> I'm performing an ongoing activity to check the applicability of current
> kernel-patches against sarge kernel-sources for 2.4.27 and 2.6.8.
>
> An almost complete summary is available at
>
> http://people.debian.org/~frankie/kernel-patches-checks.txt
>
> As you can see, there are a few patches which cannot be used
> with neither 2.4.27 nor 2.6.8. Marked patches should be simply RC bugged
> and hinted for remove if not aligned properly.
>
> I would also point that too often patch names differes from their
> kernel-patch names,
> without justification. I'm working on a little script to do this kind of
> light check automatically, too.
>
> --
> Francesco P. Lovergine
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> - End forwarded message -
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: [frankie@debian.org: Status of kernel-patches in sarge]
On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 10:04:02AM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote: > The check shown below is almost complete (but for a couple of 2.2 patches > and per-arch patches). > I'm asking if mass bug report filing is opportune at this stage. > IMHO patches which cannot be applied to debian kernel-sources are almost > unuseful and should be removed from sarge... >... I'd even ask whether all these patches are _really_ required for sarge. Each of the patches might be broken by a security update for the kernel and each of them requires security support. Does sarge e.g. really need a lowlatency patch for kernel 2.4? > Francesco P. Lovergine cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [frankie@debian.org: Status of kernel-patches in sarge]
On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 10:04:02AM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote: > The check shown below is almost complete (but for a couple of 2.2 patches > and per-arch patches). > I'm asking if mass bug report filing is opportune at this stage. > IMHO patches which cannot be applied to debian kernel-sources are almost > unuseful and should be removed from sarge... Sometime you can apply them manually even if the apply script fail: kernel-patch-skas apply fine to 2.4.27 but unfortunately, the apply script does not know (I use it with 2.4.27 since several months without any problem). I should really have NMUed this package months ago... Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[frankie@debian.org: Status of kernel-patches in sarge]
The check shown below is almost complete (but for a couple of 2.2 patches and per-arch patches). I'm asking if mass bug report filing is opportune at this stage. IMHO patches which cannot be applied to debian kernel-sources are almost unuseful and should be removed from sarge... - Forwarded message from Francesco Paolo Lovergine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Old-Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: Francesco Paolo Lovergine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: debian-kernel@lists.debian.org Subject: Status of kernel-patches in sarge Mail-Followup-To: debian-kernel@lists.debian.org I'm performing an ongoing activity to check the applicability of current kernel-patches against sarge kernel-sources for 2.4.27 and 2.6.8. An almost complete summary is available at http://people.debian.org/~frankie/kernel-patches-checks.txt As you can see, there are a few patches which cannot be used with neither 2.4.27 nor 2.6.8. Marked patches should be simply RC bugged and hinted for remove if not aligned properly. I would also point that too often patch names differes from their kernel-patch names, without justification. I'm working on a little script to do this kind of light check automatically, too. -- Francesco P. Lovergine -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] - End forwarded message - -- Francesco P. Lovergine -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
