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 common package more easy, provided a modern > > revision system is used, i would prefer subversion myself, since it is > > easier than arch. > > > > If i had to plan that, i would put the kernel-source tarball in it, > > together with the debian dir for it, and then have one per arch > > directory holding the whole kernel-patch-<arch> package. Once we have > > that in place, and i doubt the wisdom of doing much beyond that before > > the sarge release, we can start easily moving the patches to the common > > package, and also try to streamline the config files, since we spoke > > mostly of patches in this discussion, but the building of working > > .configs is also one of the big challenges of per arch kernel packaging. > > > > This would beat having each per-arch kernel-patch to use its own > > revision system in any case. > > I tend to basically agree with you. I'm not sure whether we should > actually check in the upstream source, but that should really be a minor
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. > 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 kernel. Yep, Jens did a great job on this. As for the revision system, i would vote for subversion over the more complicated arch. Many projects are using it already, Branden's X packages, debian-installer, the ocaml team, ... Friendly, Sven Luther
