On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 02:29:18PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Any different than the ppc patch we have now ?
It wouldn't be in the default kernel-image.
Yeah, so you are going to massively duplicate the amount of kernel-image
available. I am not entirely sure this is the wisest thing to
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 02:04:45PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 04:45:39PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
magically belongs into kernel-image- for a single architecture.
Ah, but it is particularly those that complain about not cleanly
applicating patches, and i
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 04:45:39PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
magically belongs into kernel-image- for a single architecture.
Ah, but it is particularly those that complain about not cleanly
applicating patches, and i would say they have less priority than per
port patches and it is their
Hi,
Andreas Barth writes:
And the security team has already requested to reduce the number of
source packages drastically. So, I'm on the side of the security
team, i.e. to go to as less source packages as possible.
I'm all for it. Let's put everything into one big source package,
then
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 08:17:57PM +0200, Jens Schmalzing wrote:
Hi,
Andreas Barth writes:
And the security team has already requested to reduce the number of
source packages drastically. So, I'm on the side of the security
team, i.e. to go to as less source packages as possible.
* Jens Schmalzing ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040525 20:40]:
Andreas Barth writes:
And the security team has already requested to reduce the number of
source packages drastically. So, I'm on the side of the security
team, i.e. to go to as less source packages as possible.
I'm all for it.
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Jens Schmalzing ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040525 20:40]:
Andreas Barth writes:
And the security team has already requested to reduce the number of
source packages drastically. So, I'm on the side of the security
team, i.e. to go to as less source
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:27:00AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:26:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Which two of four ? at least the SFS patch is maybe not ppc specific,
but has never been tested on something else, (well, maybe m68k), and is
of use mostly on m68k
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:57:37AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, it is a module, if you don't like it, don't use it. It has no
impact on anyone not having such file systems, but for those who have,
it provides a service that is quite important for them, and would be
missing if it were not
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 07:58:36PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
Again, i, as the pegasos upstream and the
powerpc kernel maintainer, take the responsability for this, so i
believe it is ok for inclusion in the debian powerpc kernel package. I
You abuse your position as
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 03:01:19PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Don't be ridicoulous. Out of tree modules should be avoided if possible,
not created artificially.
Huh? Out of tree modules are a _lot_ easier to deal with than a kernel
patch.
Also, I guess even if it is of dubious quality, i
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 03:02:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Anything else is a maintainance nightmare in the long term.
Sure, but it provides for localized testing before large scale
deployement later on.
Shouldn't a distribution kernel by production and not testing of random
changes?
Given that everyone extremly dislikes the single source package scheme
Well, if you're taking a poll, count me in favor of single source
package.
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 03:14:21PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 03:01:19PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Don't be ridicoulous. Out of tree modules should be avoided if possible,
not created artificially.
Huh? Out of tree modules are a _lot_ easier to deal with than
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 03:18:07PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 03:02:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Anything else is a maintainance nightmare in the long term.
Sure, but it provides for localized testing before large scale
deployement later on.
Shouldn't a
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 09:42:46AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
Given that everyone extremly dislikes the single source package scheme
Well, if you're taking a poll, count me in favor of single source
package.
Single source packages are nice, but not practical in the debian case. I
guess you
Single source packages are nice, but not practical in the debian case. I
guess you will have uploads multiplied by 12 or so compared to today, if
you want to keep the reactivity that is possible today.
It works for glibc, though that is uploaded much too infrequently.
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 03:53:51PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
For out of tree module writers, yes, but not as debian packages. Not all
out of tree modules adapt to 2.6 gracefully, and not all provide a clean
way for building with make-kpkg and produce a clean debian package.
Just doing make
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:04:47AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
Single source packages are nice, but not practical in the debian case. I
guess you will have uploads multiplied by 12 or so compared to today, if
you want to keep the reactivity that is possible today.
It works for glibc, though
Well, i am not a kernel expert. I believe i am an expert in debian
packaging though, which probably makes me today more adequate than you
to do the job.
Oh certainly. I have absolute no idea of debian-related packaging
issue, and as said above I don't want to take anyone's job away at all.
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 04:08:33PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 03:53:51PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
For out of tree module writers, yes, but not as debian packages. Not all
out of tree modules adapt to 2.6 gracefully, and not all provide a clean
way for building
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 04:12:45PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Well, i am not a kernel expert. I believe i am an expert in debian
packaging though, which probably makes me today more adequate than you
to do the job.
Oh certainly. I have absolute no idea of debian-related packaging
* Michael Banck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040524 15:55]:
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 03:02:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 07:58:36PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
Anything else is a maintainance nightmare in the long term.
Sure, but it provides for localized testing
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040524 16:10]:
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 09:42:46AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
Given that everyone extremly dislikes the single source package scheme
Well, if you're taking a poll, count me in favor of single source
package.
Single source packages are
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 05:26:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040524 16:10]:
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 09:42:46AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
Given that everyone extremly dislikes the single source package scheme
Well, if you're taking a poll, count me
Andreas Barth wrote:
[snip]
Please also note that having different kernel sources for each
architecture is also a nightmare for the security team, who actually
have to maintain this once Sarge is released.
And the security team has already requested to reduce the number of
source
Andreas Barth wrote:
[snip]
Single source packages are nice, but not practical in the debian case. I
guess you will have uploads multiplied by 12 or so compared to today, if
you want to keep the reactivity that is possible today.
Well, even if it is not possible to do a single source
* Thiemo Seufer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040524 17:25]:
With a single kernel package, you'd have to wait with a new i386 release
until the user of one of the more obscure mips subarchitectures gave it
a try on his box. That's simply not practical.
Btw, so far nobody explained why a single kernel
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040524 18:10]:
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 05:26:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040524 16:10]:
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 09:42:46AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
Given that everyone extremly dislikes the single source package
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 06:13:35PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Thiemo Seufer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040524 17:25]:
With a single kernel package, you'd have to wait with a new i386 release
until the user of one of the more obscure mips subarchitectures gave it
a try on his box. That's simply
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 06:14:55PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040524 18:10]:
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 05:26:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040524 16:10]:
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 09:42:46AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
Hi,
Christoph Hellwig writes:
I've tested them (although that was a different set of snooping patches,
there's lots of those around), and then talked to the orinioco driver
maintainer on irc why they aren't in. He explained in more detail
than I could unserstand why he thinks the patches
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Thiemo Seufer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040524 17:25]:
With a single kernel package, you'd have to wait with a new i386 release
until the user of one of the more obscure mips subarchitectures gave it
a try on his box. That's simply not practical.
Btw, so far nobody
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 02:23:32PM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
I regard the linux-mips.org CVS as MIPS upstream, and I don't want to
handle patch conflicts with architectures I know nothing about.
Exactly that mentality is what I meant. Q.E.D.
I wish you good luck keeping your head in the
Hi,
first and foremost, this discussion belongs on debian-kernel. Please
take if off debian-devel right here and now.
Christoph Hellwig writes:
As William mentioned no one wants to take over any packages.
His first message sounded quite different. I'm glad and thankful he
made his
and with that I mean the existing maintainers should cooperate.
Indeed. But cooperation already exists. So far, it meant that
Herbert took the upstream source, prepared a kernel-source package,
and put it up on people.d.o for the other maintainers to download and
prepare their
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 02:52:46PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 02:44:29PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Christophe, this you are telling is pure bullshit. I have been asking
for help on the powerpc kernel packages for month, go look at the
debian-powerpc mailing list
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 02:23:32PM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
[snip]
Because they have a single upstream, while the kernel has several
for all the architectures.
That's bullshit. You have a single upstream and patches vs it from
different sources.
I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
I regard the linux-mips.org CVS as MIPS upstream, and I don't want to
handle patch conflicts with architectures I know nothing about.
Apparently your regard does not extend to looking what's really in there.
Care to check the diff between linux-mips
39 matches
Mail list logo
