Goswin von Brederlow wrote: [snip] > >> linux-kernel-KVERS-ARCH(-SUBVERS) (plus extras, see below) > > > > remov the -kernel, linux is the kernel, and upstream tarballs are > > linux-$version, too. > > > > remove the -arch, it'll be .$arch.deb anyway, rather add a -flavour. > > What do you name linux-2.6.6-amd64-generic-1_2.6.6-1_i386.deb then? > ^name ^KVER ^ARCH ^flavour^revision ^package arch > ^dpkg version
- I think it should be *_amd64.deb in the long run. - "generic" is a reather useless placeholder for the one and only flavour, and too unspecific if there are several. - KVERS should probably be major/minor only, this helps keeping the unstable/testing kernel in an installation current, and avoids explicit removal requests for obsolete ones. - The revision can be encoded in the dpkg version, if we apply the same convention for all kernel packages. [snip] > >> * make sure that even the "pristine" tarball contains minimalistic > >> information about its status in Debian (packagename, version), so it > >> would be easier to create meta-source packages with kernel-builder > >> * deliver architecture-independent changes as a "debian" patch > > > > tend to disagree here. the .diff.gz of kernel-source (or whatever it's > > called) should contain all patches needed to build all images. > > No. Please don't. The build-time and the amount of rebuilds needed > makes such an undertaking impossible. Not exactly impossible, but it won't work well for non-mainstream architectures. Thiemo
