1 |
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:32:38PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 14:27:36 -0700 Greg KH <gregkh@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> | - development-sources are clean kernel.org kernels |
4 |
> |
5 |
> Since when? This is not what we were told when John helped us to move |
6 |
> our sparc patchset from sparc-dev-sources to his shiny new kernel-2 |
7 |
> powered development-sources. We were given lengthy assurances that we |
8 |
> would a) be able to keep our sparc patchset there without having to |
9 |
> worry about it b) conflicting with the horridly broken gentoo- patchset |
10 |
> and c) it being repeatedly broken by people doing "security bumps". |
11 |
> |
12 |
> We already know that c) hasn't been happening, and our requests for |
13 |
> certain people to show more care when dealing with other archs have |
14 |
> fallen upon deaf ears. Now we're being told that a) and b) are no longer |
15 |
> any good either? |
16 |
|
17 |
Ok, sorry about this. John went away for a long period of time, and I |
18 |
took over the kernel stuff for him. I never was aware of this issue, |
19 |
and by reading the metadata file, I thought this was the case (also see |
20 |
the point about the vanilla kernel.) |
21 |
|
22 |
So, after the sparc patches get moved into the g-d-s package, this |
23 |
package will be a clean kernel.org kernel only. Is that ok with you? |
24 |
|
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 |
> Of course it's a big deal. We've already made our users change kernel |
31 |
> sets once. Now we're going to have to go through all this again because |
32 |
> the kernel team don't talk to each other? And you also expect us to deal |
33 |
> with people who assume that anything labeled gentoo-dev-sources will |
34 |
> include the gentoo- patchset? |
35 |
|
36 |
Sent those people to me. I'm more than willing to fix that incorrect |
37 |
assumption :) |
38 |
|
39 |
> To be honest, given the history on this, I think the ideal solution for |
40 |
> this would be an arch-dev-sources which was locked in cvs so that |
41 |
> over-zealous x86-kernel and security people *couldn't* go and break our |
42 |
> kernels *yet again*. |
43 |
|
44 |
If you want to have a sparc-*-sources tree, fine with me. I'll never |
45 |
touch it (even for security fixes and other good stuff that you could |
46 |
get for free by using the g-d-s package...) |
47 |
|
48 |
That's your call. I'm offering to help put sparc stuff into g-d-s. If |
49 |
the sparc people don't want to do that for whatever reason, I'm also ok |
50 |
with that, as long as they don't use the d-s kernel package either. |
51 |
|
52 |
Fair enough? |
53 |
|
54 |
thanks, |
55 |
|
56 |
greg k-h |
57 |
|
58 |
-- |
59 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |