> > 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 powerpc kernel maintainer to get your > pet patches in without proper review.
I wouldn't be as harsh as Christoph here but I do agree on the principle. I have a long experience of dealing diverging kernel trees and beleive me, that's not a path we want to go through. Even if we decide to keep per-arch kernel packages, we should at least do the maximum to have all patches in a single upstream source and keep local what is strictly necessary. Anything else is a maintainance nightmare in the long term. > > Yes, i agree with that, altough i somewhat disagree with your way of > > clasifying the patches. I think it is a good thing to have one or more > > patches in a arch specific patch, be it for localized testing before a > > wider usage, or because the patch, in despite of not being arch specific > > is of restricted use outside that arch. > > Any difference of sources between architectures is a maintaince pain. > How do you explain people syscall foo works strange on architecture one > but not architecture 2 because of strange patches? > > How do you easily make sure new Architecture: all patches don't break > a large per-arch patch later? Why does the orinoc driver do snooping > on ppc and not others? Why is asfs part of the ppc kernel but not other > so I can't read the amiga disks on my PC? Yah, among others... Ben.
