On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 08:16:50PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Bastian Blank ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070116 15:06]: > > On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 06:05:44PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > * Bastian Blank ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070114 15:21]: > > > > This fix and the prefered patch (attached) needs testing to make sure > > > > the following things works fine: > > > > - linux-patch-debian-*/linux-tree-* > > > > - linux-modules-*
> > > What do you mean with this? The second I guess that linux-modules-* > > > still build correctly? > > Exact. > I compiled the "regular" linux-2.6-package, and got the diff below. I > think based on that we can commit your latest patch now, and sort any > reminders out later on. (I used + instead of . as version number - but > that shouldn't make a difference anyways.) > (In other words, I guess we are safe now with an upload, but of course > need to continue checking what happens.) I understood that what Bastian wanted was a regression test for the modules packages and the linux-tree-* virtual packages, the latter of which relies heavily on the patch handling in linux-2.6. I'm not sure how important the latter is; I've previously heard concerns expressed within the kernel team that extracting the right patch level from linux-tree-* was already broken, but if it works today we wouldn't want to break it as it has possible GPL implications (i.e., if the linux-2.6 package revs a patchlevel, is it still possible to extract the version of the source that was used to build the kernels used by d-i?). Since this is the sort of breakage that wouldn't be picked up in user testing post-upload, I'm going to see what I can do about regression-testing it before committing the patch to svn. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
