On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 01:13:31PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 01:07:38PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 12:19:04PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > the plan for solving the ramdisk issues is done in three stages, current > > > svn > > > 2.6.13 packages implement stage 1, i have patches for both initrd-tools > > > and > > > initramfs-tools in svn, and the yaird folk adapted it for yaird, so we > > > may go > > > ahead and upload those nextly (if it could be in by monday, that would be > > > nice). I will work on the last stage, the kernel-package patch, this WE, > > > and > > > do an NMU since Manoj is unavailable for the next times and asked us to > > > do so. > > > > initramfs-tools waits for mklibs. > > Well, we can go ahead with yaird for now, what is the mklibs issue ? Or can > mklibs be disabled for now ? > > > > Broken but being worked on : s390 > > > > Broken gcc or inline assembly, the IBM people expect the later. Hope > > that I get a fix from them at monday. > > Ok, as said, if not, it can wait for -3. > > > > The other issue is that 2.6.14 is scheduled for release in the not so > > > distant > > > future, so we may skip uploading .13-3 to unstable and go for .14-1 > > > directly, > > > depending on status of newly introduced breakage in .14 and such. > > > > I vote for the later. > > Hehe, but this does suppose we create now another branch and start porting the > patches and configs, i see nobody volunteering to do that.
I vote for not creating another breach. I vote for moving to .14 (or some -rc variant thereof). Its unlikelty to make much difference on the initrd front and saves duplication of effort that is inherent in the more branches approach. -- Horms -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
