| 1 |
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 03:50:19PM -0600, Jason Wever wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Greg KH wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 03:15:05PM -0600, Jason Wever wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > Can we please get a consistent answer on 2.6 kernels when it comes to |
| 6 |
> > > sparc? We used to have sparc-development-sources, which we were told to |
| 7 |
> > > consolidate into development-sources. Now today with absolutely 0 |
| 8 |
> > > notification what-so-ever, our patchsets to development-sources were |
| 9 |
> > > yanked because it wasn't the appropriate place. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Sorry for the stress. There really isn't a kernel team anymore, becides |
| 12 |
> > me and a few others, and we all seem strung accross different timezones |
| 13 |
> > these days. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> That's about the size of most of our teams. What was so dire about the |
| 16 |
> sparc patch to development-sources that it had to be removed right this |
| 17 |
> instant without consulting both SPARC and your own kernel team? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
There was a bug marked for this. Sorry for being quick on it. I was |
| 20 |
also told a while ago that the sparc team had their own kernel. I never |
| 21 |
thought it was this one (as the metadata file sure didn't say that...) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> > Here's the answer: |
| 24 |
> > - development-sources are clean kernel.org kernels |
| 25 |
> > - gentoo-dev-sources are the current 2.6 kernel trees for all |
| 26 |
> > arches. There is no cesspool of patches in there, and it is |
| 27 |
> > the kernel for the ppc64, amd64, x86, and a few other arches. |
| 28 |
> > Making it the sparc kernel too is no big deal. |
| 29 |
> > |
| 30 |
> > This is needed so that bugs and security fixes that previously have not |
| 31 |
> > gotten put into the d-s package get applied across all arches quickly |
| 32 |
> > and easily. |
| 33 |
> > |
| 34 |
> > I am willing and able to help the sparc team (and any other arch) to |
| 35 |
> > make the g-d-s package work for them. |
| 36 |
> > |
| 37 |
> > Is that acceptable? |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> Yes and no. I'm definitely willing to help work with you to get that |
| 40 |
> patch set in there. However that doesn't change the fact that the |
| 41 |
> adjustment of the packages today was very bad as it wasn't communicated at |
| 42 |
> all to allow us to at least notify our users that things will change. |
| 43 |
> Removing our patchset can and will cause problems for people who were |
| 44 |
> using development-sources on sparc, and more than just because they have |
| 45 |
> to switch what kernel they use. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
But they get security fixes for free with that switch, that's a good |
| 48 |
reason to do so :) |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
> If you want to make changes that's fine, just please consider the |
| 51 |
> ramifications of those changes and let the people who will be effected |
| 52 |
> know with enough time before-hand so that they can do what is needed to |
| 53 |
> help make those migration changes as smooth as possible. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
Again, sorry for the speed at which this happened, I am very sorry about |
| 56 |
it. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
thanks, |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
greg k-h |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
-- |
| 63 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives