On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 06:36:17PM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote: > No, dude, it's just the exact same as README-Users.m4, just > translated. It should be handled just the same. > > > Its impossible to upload this, since builds for other > > arches will probably also have this file, for their special architecture. > > Eh? What I mean is, it has to end up in one of the bf-* files since they have an arch specific ending. I simply can not upload a README.pl file to incoming. If powerpc uploaded on the same day, its rejected, since the m68k files already exists WITH AN IDENTICAL NAME. The way I understood the bf, all files which are to be uploaded shall end in one of the bf-*<arch> files. Right? > > m68k: the mac people want to bump up their kernel to 2.2.16. When we finally > > receive the patches, we might be able to built 2.2.16 kernel images for the > > other architectures as well, until then we would have to use 2.2.16 for mac > > and 2.2.10 for everybody else, is it possible to do that for m68k (I think > > Ive seen something similar for powerpc)? > > Sure, I think so. Just fudge around int he top-level Makefile. > > Are the kernels uploaded for Potato yet? No, they are not even built yet... 2.2.16 is working on my amiga, I'd like people with other machines to test it before we use it for boot-floppies. These days you even have to build your own kernel-source_2.2.16, thats why we (linux-m68k) are officially still at 2.2.10. BTW, if I upload those images, we should also have a kernel-patch package, but I did not see a kernel-source-2.2.16 package in debian. > You are wanting to make Mac install disks for 2.2.10 as well as > 2.2.16? This makes my heart sink. Is that really necessary? I don't want it, the mac guys proposed that, since some machines do not work well with 2.2.16. Some only work with 2.2.16, some like Penguin18, some only work with Penguin17 and, oh I am sure some can only cope with 2.0.36. Its a total mess and I am not really sure what to do without a debian/mac68k maintainer. I only wanted to hear that its not, I mean _how_ feasible it is. > > I think we want new kernel images (2.2.10) for amiga and atari anyway, how > > much time do we have till 2.2.18 (hint for debian-68k: I need the patches to > > go in, without them I can not built kernel-images)? > > Christian, you should feel free to burn and release point versions for > Mac at any time. Just tag/dpkg-buildpackage -uc -us/debsign then > upload it. It's just a source upload rather than just a binary > upload. Argh, no, please not for mac. I don't have a mac, I work for m68k. I'd like to keep it as simple as possible, thus one kernel-image version for all subarches. If mac guys want very special things, they have to create a mac maintainer... > Thus we could have 2.2.18 on Tuesday (i386) then 2.2.19 on Friday > (m68k) or whatever, it doesn't matter, integers are cheap and > plentiful. I don't believe in making all ports wait for all other > ports. Yup, sure.
Christian
