On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 04:15 +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 01:49:49PM -0600, dann frazier wrote: > > On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 21:21 +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 08:32:17AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > So we are taking the version in Sarge, and just making a > > > > couple of changes to it an uploading? Whynot just take the very > > > > latest version of kernel-package and put that in t-p-u? > > > > > > Because we are aiming volatile, which should build with sarge alone, so > > > we are > > > planing on uploading to s-p-u and not t-p-u, and have it go into a point > > > release. > > > > I'm confused about what this thread is all about. The subject seems to > > suggest that we're wanting to push something into testing, but I get the > > feeling the intent is to propose 2.6.12 be included in a point release. > > > > I like the idea of getting linux-2.6 into volatile, with all necessary > > build-deps, but I'd be surprised if the stable release manager was > > willing to consider upgrading the kernel in a point release. If that is > > indeed the goal, has anyone talked to Joey about it? > > The point is to either : > > 1) upload a patched kernel-package to s-p-u, in order build linux-2.6 out of > sarge+s-p-u, and thus allow for a linux-2.6 upload to volatile with the > current rules. > > 2) bend the volatile rules, and allow building linux-2.6 with a > kernel-package also uploaded to volatile. > > 3) forget about volatile, and us the backport.org infrastructure instead. > > 4) upload dilinger's packages to volatile, and disable powerpc support in > those, and provide powerpc kernels from another source. We will not be able > to provide powerpc64 packages anyway in any of the above solutions.
What about: 5) Upload kernel-package backport and linux-2.6 backport to volatile Is this somehow not permitted by volatile policy? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
