xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: .deb kernel packages

To: "Eric Sandeen" <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: .deb kernel packages
From: "Ed Boraas" <ed@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 10:35:04 -0600
Cc: <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: http://www.ed.boraas.ca
References: <3BAF55CC.B35ED24@xxxxxxxx> <20010926144930.D463360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <015301c1469d$26b39e40$3d79b9c7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3BB1F21A.47D82953@xxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Ed Boraas wrote:
>
> > [snip]
> >
> > Just as a note, I've added the development patches (for Linux 2.4.6 -
> > 2.4.10) to the package. After today's dinstall run, they'll be in sid.
> >
> > I'm hoping this is the right move... Some people have complained about
lack
> > of updates, and I can't say I totally blame them.
>
> If you mean lack of updates by SGI, I'll address that.  Or perhaps you
mean
> Debian updates?  :)

Well, lack of Debian updates, which are in turn due to the fact that my
(former) policy was to package only the "release" patches.

> Depends on what you mean by updates...  we release a patch within days of
every
> kernel point release, but our "official" releases are a bit few and far
> between.  Perhaps it's just semantics - our "official" releases are run
through
> the wringer and get heavy testing, whereas the kernel patches don't,
necessarily
> - however, despite the dire warnings, I generally do have a lot of
confidence in
> the "snapshot" patches.  In fact, Mandrake is essentially releasing our
2.4.8
> "snapshot" in their next distro - of course they tested it heavily, and it
> didn't fall down.

Well, that's good to know. That was the heart of the question -- I wasn't
sure to what degree the interim patches could be relied upon. I do
understand that "unofficial" just means "not run through the immense battery
of tests that the 'release' patches are" and not "just pulled at random out
of cvs", yet I did have some internal reluctance to package something
labelled "unofficial".

> So in short, adding our snapshot patches to Debian is probably a good
move.

I'll carry on with this approach, then.

> > In the near future, I may drop the patches for the older kernels, if I
get
> > positive feedback on the development patches. This would have the added
> > benefit of deprecating the kernel-patch-xfs-core patch package, assuming
> > 1.0.1++ won't be using the two-patch model.
>
> Hm, that's something we'll have to talk about.  I'm not sure the two-patch
model
> has any real benefits for the general public...

Well, do you have any ideas if 1.0.1++ will use split packages? I'll need to
plan my package upgrade strategy (moving from two packages to one is fairly
straight-forward, but splitting them back out again can be less simple).

Also, the source to linux 2.4.5 isn't available in the debian archives (at
time of writing, I believe we have 2.4.8 - 2.4.10 in the archive). Do any of
you have any opinion on whether the 2.4.5 patch should stay in by virtue of
its "official" status?

Take care,
Ed.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>