On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 09:27:05 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 01:17:10AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 10:03:16 +0200, Francesco P Lovergine
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I think the only serious reason to use svn is its similarity with
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 10:03:16 +0200, Francesco P Lovergine
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I think the only serious reason to use svn is its similarity with
cvs by the human interface point of view. So, using it is
straightforward. Arch is quite involuted and underdocumented
AFAIK. But, as always
* Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-06-03 12:43]:
Fine with me. So let's create an alitoh project for the kernel,
and a subversion repo. Anyone is already looking into this ?
Ok, Martin?
I wanted to ask for a debian-kernel project but I see that Sven has
requested a kernel project
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 02:12:49PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
Now, if arch had a bitkeeper gateway ...
What would that do?
Well, not really be usefull in the current plan, which is to hold only
the debian part, but if there was a bitekeeper gateway, we could hold
the whole kernel tree in it,
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 09:42:16PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 02:12:49PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
Now, if arch had a bitkeeper gateway ...
What would that do?
Well, not really be usefull in the current plan, which is to hold only
the debian part, but if there
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 09:38:58PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 09:42:16PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 02:12:49PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
Now, if arch had a bitkeeper gateway ...
What would that do?
Well, not really be usefull
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 00:34:05 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
That said, i prefer the simpler to use subversion, it let you be
more productive.
Do you have any basis for that statement? I have absolutely
no experience with subversion, but I often hear Branden grumbling
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 11:22:32PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 00:34:05 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
That said, i prefer the simpler to use subversion, it let you be
more productive.
Do you have any basis for that statement? I have absolutely
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 20:51:04 +0200, Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 02:33:53PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
The alioth repository host is currently not suitable for large
^
repositories.
It is for
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 04:40:23PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 20:51:04 +0200, Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 02:33:53PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
The alioth repository host is currently not suitable for large
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 06:30:24AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, it would just be a unified repository where all the kernels
packages would be held, and which would make migration of patches from
the arch packages to the common package more easy, provided a modern
revision system is used, i
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 12:00:07PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 06:30:24AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, it would just be a unified repository where all the kernels
packages would be held, and which would make migration of patches from
the arch packages to the
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 12:21:24PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, you can check in the compressed tarball, in order to be sure it
doesn't get lost or something. Less of a concern for kernel sources than
random assorted packages though.
OK..
detail. The common .config bit is of course also
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 12:19:56PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 12:21:24PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
detail. The common .config bit is of course also important! I'd love
to move the fragments infrastructure of the 2.6 kernel-patch-powerpc
to the generic
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 12:46:18PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Fine with me. So let's create an alitoh project for the kernel, and a
subversion repo. Anyone is already looking into this ?
Ok, Martin?
For 2.2/2.4 let's follow his suggestion to not do any major changes,
let's just try to move
We've been flaming^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdiscussing a lot of design items here,
but we should try to get up a list of items for to be done for sarge.
First priority for all sarge work should be to keep the maintaince
overhead for the security team down. That means in particular trying
to keep as few as
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 12:30:45PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
To do all this work nicely we should get a repo on alioth ASAP,
especially to allow the arch maintainers to work on the main
kernel-source too for better cooperation.
The alioth repository host is currently not suitable for
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 06:49:52PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
I don't think we should check the kernel tree into it. Just the debian/
directory.
If we want to handle patches, we need to that.
Hmm, I should try to automerge kernel sources with svk.
Bastian
--
The heart is not a logical
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 07:16:57PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 06:49:52PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
I don't think we should check the kernel tree into it. Just the debian/
directory.
If we want to handle patches, we need to that.
Umm, no. Patches should be
The alioth repository host is currently not suitable for large
repositories.
It is for arch.debian.org.
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 02:33:53PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
The alioth repository host is currently not suitable for large
^
repositories.
It is for arch.debian.org.
arch is not suitable for large repositories either.
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 12:30:45PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
We've been flaming^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdiscussing a lot of design items here,
but we should try to get up a list of items for to be done for sarge.
First priority for all sarge work should be to keep the maintaince
overhead for the
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
[snip]
The idea is have to have a debian/patches/ dir that contains all
patches, similar to how many of the lots of little patches systems
work these days (CDBS? or the .dpatch stuff in the glibc packaging),
and the .diff.gz doesn't touch anything outside debian/.
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 09:46:50PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
I have been tracking the -benh tree for the powerpc 2.4 kernels, since
most people used that anyway. Benh has not updated this tree since
february though, and i don't forsee him working on this in the next two
month or so, so there
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 10:14:08PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
I'll merge it forward for you this wekk. I'll also talk to benh whether I
can check it into his BK repo.
Ok, fine with me, altough i still think that 2.6 makes more sense for
powerpc in the long run.
I completely agree.
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 10:06:38PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 10:14:08PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
I'll merge it forward for you this wekk. I'll also talk to benh whether I
can check it into his BK repo.
Ok, fine with me, altough i still think that 2.6
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 10:48:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Known security problems ? All known problems of 2.4.25 have been fixed
and backported from later kernels, so i don't really see what we would
gain by going to 2.4.26, apart from uniformity over all arches.
I don't have the time right
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 10:42:43PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 10:48:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Known security problems ? All known problems of 2.4.25 have been fixed
and backported from later kernels, so i don't really see what we would
gain by going to
28 matches
Mail list logo
