>>> and with that I mean the existing maintainers should cooperate.
Jens Schmalzing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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 arch-specific kernel-image packages. Very efficient. I >> don't think we could come even close to this if we had one source >> package for all kernel-image packages. On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 01:22:16PM -0500, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: > It may be efficient for maintainers, but it leads to non-x86 arches > being second-class citizens if everyone has to wait for the x86 > maintainer to prepare arch-specific kernels. The result is I just go > download source and build for all my PPC debian machines. I'd really > rather get a debian package. But if ppc has to wait for x86, it just > gets to take too long. For 2.4 and earlier this was an absolute necessity. For 2.6, there has been a concerted effort to repair core impedance mismatches and/or API deficiencies preventing architectures from working in mainline, and we should work through mainline. I also like to think I don't suffer from this kind of malady. On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 01:22:16PM -0500, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: > I'd like to propose we attempt to build x86, amd64, ppc, and ia64 > kernels from the same source tree. Arches like mips and m68k will > probably still need extra patches. But we should really be working to > mainline those patches. > Note I did not include PPC64 in this list yet... I think we are gated on > that until we have something equivalent to what amd64 has on alioth. For 2.6 I would like to see a consolidation effort, but there are other issues to tackle first. I don't want to go about planning this until everything's in place and the port maintainers are fully involved. -- wli
