On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 02:29:18PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Any different than the ppc patch we have now ?
> >
> > It wouldn't be in the default kernel-image.
>
> Yeah, so you are going to massively duplicate the amount of kernel-image
> available. I am not entirely sure this is the wisest
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 02:04:45PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 04:45:39PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > magically belongs into kernel-image- for a single architecture.
> >
> > Ah, but it is particularly those that complain about not cleanly
> > applicating patches,
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 04:45:39PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > magically belongs into kernel-image- for a single architecture.
>
> Ah, but it is particularly those that complain about not cleanly
> applicating patches, and i would say they have less priority than per
> port patches and it is the
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Jens Schmalzing ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040525 20:40]:
>> Andreas Barth writes:
>
>> > And the security team has already requested to reduce the number of
>> > source packages drastically. So, I'm on the side of the security
>> > team, i.e. to go to as l
* Jens Schmalzing ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040525 20:40]:
> Andreas Barth writes:
> > And the security team has already requested to reduce the number of
> > source packages drastically. So, I'm on the side of the security
> > team, i.e. to go to as less source packages as possible.
> I'm all for i
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 08:17:57PM +0200, Jens Schmalzing wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Andreas Barth writes:
>
> > And the security team has already requested to reduce the number of
> > source packages drastically. So, I'm on the side of the security
> > team, i.e. to go to as less source packages as possi
Hi,
Andreas Barth writes:
> And the security team has already requested to reduce the number of
> source packages drastically. So, I'm on the side of the security
> team, i.e. to go to as less source packages as possible.
I'm all for it. Let's put everything into one big source package,
then w
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Thiemo Seufer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040524 17:25]:
> > With a single kernel package, you'd have to wait with a new i386 release
> > until the user of one of the more obscure mips subarchitectures gave it
> > a try on his box. That's simply not practical.
> >
> > Btw, so far
Hi,
Christoph Hellwig writes:
> I've tested them (although that was a different set of snooping patches,
> there's lots of those around), and then talked to the orinioco driver
> maintainer on irc why they aren't in. He explained in more detail
> than I could unserstand why he thinks the patches
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 06:14:55PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040524 18:10]:
> > On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 05:26:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040524 16:10]:
> > > > On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 09:42:46AM -0400, Clint Adams
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 06:13:35PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Thiemo Seufer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040524 17:25]:
> > With a single kernel package, you'd have to wait with a new i386 release
> > until the user of one of the more obscure mips subarchitectures gave it
> > a try on his box. That's
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040524 18:10]:
> On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 05:26:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040524 16:10]:
> > > On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 09:42:46AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> > > > > Given that everyone extremly dislikes the single sour
* Thiemo Seufer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040524 17:25]:
> With a single kernel package, you'd have to wait with a new i386 release
> until the user of one of the more obscure mips subarchitectures gave it
> a try on his box. That's simply not practical.
>
> Btw, so far nobody explained why a single ke
Andreas Barth wrote:
[snip]
> > Single source packages are nice, but not practical in the debian case. I
> > guess you will have uploads multiplied by 12 or so compared to today, if
> > you want to keep the reactivity that is possible today.
>
> Well, even if it is not possible to do a single sour
Andreas Barth wrote:
[snip]
> > Please also note that having different kernel sources for each
> > architecture is also a nightmare for the security team, who actually
> > have to maintain this once Sarge is released.
>
> And the security team has already requested to reduce the number of
> sourc
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 05:26:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040524 16:10]:
> > On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 09:42:46AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> > > > Given that everyone extremly dislikes the single source package scheme
>
> > > Well, if you're taking a poll,
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040524 16:10]:
> On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 09:42:46AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> > > Given that everyone extremly dislikes the single source package scheme
> > Well, if you're taking a poll, count me in favor of single source
> > package.
> Single source package
* Michael Banck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040524 15:55]:
> On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 03:02:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 07:58:36PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > Anything else is a maintainance nightmare in the long term.
> > Sure, but it provides for localized t
Clint Adams wrote:
> > Single source packages are nice, but not practical in the debian case. I
> > guess you will have uploads multiplied by 12 or so compared to today, if
> > you want to keep the reactivity that is possible today.
>
> It works for glibc, though that is uploaded much too infreque
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 04:12:45PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Well, i am not a kernel expert. I believe i am an expert in debian
> > packaging though, which probably makes me today more adequate than you
> > to do the job.
>
> Oh certainly. I have absolute no idea of debian-related packa
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 04:08:33PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 03:53:51PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > For out of tree module writers, yes, but not as debian packages. Not all
> > out of tree modules adapt to 2.6 gracefully, and not all provide a clean
> > way for bui
> Well, i am not a kernel expert. I believe i am an expert in debian
> packaging though, which probably makes me today more adequate than you
> to do the job.
Oh certainly. I have absolute no idea of debian-related packaging
issue, and as said above I don't want to take anyone's job away at all.
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:04:47AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> > Single source packages are nice, but not practical in the debian case. I
> > guess you will have uploads multiplied by 12 or so compared to today, if
> > you want to keep the reactivity that is possible today.
>
> It works for glibc,
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 03:53:51PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> For out of tree module writers, yes, but not as debian packages. Not all
> out of tree modules adapt to 2.6 gracefully, and not all provide a clean
> way for building with make-kpkg and produce a clean debian package.
>
> Just doing ma
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 03:34:00PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 03:02:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 07:58:36PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > Anything else is a maintainance nightmare in the long term.
> >
> > Sure, but it provides
> Single source packages are nice, but not practical in the debian case. I
> guess you will have uploads multiplied by 12 or so compared to today, if
> you want to keep the reactivity that is possible today.
It works for glibc, though that is uploaded much too infrequently.
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 09:42:46AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> > Given that everyone extremly dislikes the single source package scheme
>
> Well, if you're taking a poll, count me in favor of single source
> package.
Single source packages are nice, but not practical in the debian case. I
guess y
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 03:18:07PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 03:02:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Anything else is a maintainance nightmare in the long term.
> >
> > Sure, but it provides for localized testing before large scale
> > deployement later on.
>
>
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 03:02:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 07:58:36PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > Anything else is a maintainance nightmare in the long term.
>
> Sure, but it provides for localized testing before large scale
> deployement later on.
Please
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 03:14:21PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 03:01:19PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Don't be ridicoulous. Out of tree modules should be avoided if possible,
> > not created artificially.
>
> Huh? Out of tree modules are a _lot_ easier to deal with
> Given that everyone extremly dislikes the single source package scheme
Well, if you're taking a poll, count me in favor of single source
package.
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 03:02:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Anything else is a maintainance nightmare in the long term.
>
> Sure, but it provides for localized testing before large scale
> deployement later on.
Shouldn't a distribution kernel by production and not testing of random
changes?
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 03:01:19PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Don't be ridicoulous. Out of tree modules should be avoided if possible,
> not created artificially.
Huh? Out of tree modules are a _lot_ easier to deal with than a kernel
patch.
> Also, I guess even if it is of dubious quality, i gu
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 07:58:36PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> > > Again, i, as the pegasos upstream and the
> > > powerpc kernel maintainer, take the responsability for this, so i
> > > believe it is ok for inclusion in the debian powerpc kernel package. I
> >
> > You abuse your pos
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 11:15:41AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:57:37AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Well, it is a module, if you don't like it, don't use it. It has no
> > impact on anyone not having such file systems, but for those who have,
> > it provides a serv
> > Again, i, as the pegasos upstream and the
> > powerpc kernel maintainer, take the responsability for this, so i
> > believe it is ok for inclusion in the debian powerpc kernel package. I
>
> You abuse your position as powerpc kernel maintainer to get your
> pet patches in without proper revie
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:57:37AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Well, it is a module, if you don't like it, don't use it. It has no
> impact on anyone not having such file systems, but for those who have,
> it provides a service that is quite important for them, and would be
> missing if it were not
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:27:00AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:26:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Which two of four ? at least the SFS patch is maybe not ppc specific,
> > but has never been tested on something else, (well, maybe m68k), and is
> > of use mostly o
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:26:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Which two of four ? at least the SFS patch is maybe not ppc specific,
> but has never been tested on something else, (well, maybe m68k), and is
> of use mostly on m68k and powerpc, since it is an amiga/morphos related
> filesystem.
> Fu
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 03:41:30PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > and with that I mean the existing maintainers should cooperate.
> >
> > Indeed. But cooperation already exists. So far, it meant that
> > Herbert took the upstream source, prepared a kernel-source package,
> > and put it up
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
> > I regard the linux-mips.org CVS as MIPS upstream, and I don't want to
> > handle patch conflicts with architectures I know nothing about.
>
> Apparently your regard does not extend to looking what's really in there.
> Care to check the diff between linux-mips re
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 02:23:32PM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Because they have a single upstream, while the kernel has several
> > > for all the architectures.
> >
> > That's bullshit. You have a single upstream and patches vs it from
> > different sour
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 02:52:46PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 02:44:29PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Christophe, this you are telling is pure bullshit. I have been asking
> > for help on the powerpc kernel packages for month, go look at the
> > debian-powerpc mailin
> > and with that I mean the existing maintainers should cooperate.
>
> Indeed. But cooperation already exists. So far, it meant that
> Herbert took the upstream source, prepared a kernel-source package,
> and put it up on people.d.o for the other maintainers to download and
> prepare their arch
Hi,
first and foremost, this discussion belongs on debian-kernel. Please
take if off debian-devel right here and now.
Christoph Hellwig writes:
> As William mentioned no one wants to take over any packages.
His first message sounded quite different. I'm glad and thankful he
made his intention
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 02:23:32PM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> I regard the linux-mips.org CVS as MIPS upstream, and I don't want to
> handle patch conflicts with architectures I know nothing about.
Exactly that mentality is what I meant. Q.E.D.
I wish you good luck keeping your head in the sa
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
[snip]
> > Because they have a single upstream, while the kernel has several
> > for all the architectures.
>
> That's bullshit. You have a single upstream and patches vs it from
> different sources.
I regard the linux-mips.org CVS as MIPS upstream, and I don't want to
h
47 matches
Mail list logo
