1 |
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 04:17:45PM -0600, Jason Wever wrote: |
2 |
> On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Greg KH wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> > There was a bug marked for this. Sorry for being quick on it. I was |
5 |
> > also told a while ago that the sparc team had their own kernel. I never |
6 |
> > thought it was this one (as the metadata file sure didn't say that...) |
7 |
> |
8 |
> If I'm thinking of the same bug here, the sparc patch had nothing to do |
9 |
> with it. It wasn't even being used on the user's architecture. As far as |
10 |
> I know the user never really said it was fixed either. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> > > > - development-sources are clean kernel.org kernels |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Isn't this what vanilla-sources is for? |
15 |
|
16 |
It would be, but we don't have a 2.6 kernel in that package for some |
17 |
reason. If we can do that somehow, that would be fine with me. John, |
18 |
any problem with this instead? |
19 |
|
20 |
And if we do this, we can get rid of the development-sources pacakge |
21 |
entirely :) |
22 |
|
23 |
> > > > - gentoo-dev-sources are the current 2.6 kernel trees for all |
24 |
> > > > arches. There is no cesspool of patches in there, and it is |
25 |
> > > > the kernel for the ppc64, amd64, x86, and a few other arches. |
26 |
> > > > Making it the sparc kernel too is no big deal. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> When we make changes like this in the future, please give us some headway. |
29 |
> |
30 |
> |
31 |
> > Again, sorry for the speed at which this happened, I am very sorry about |
32 |
> > it. |
33 |
> |
34 |
> Not to be a totally insensitive person, but until we have a chance to get |
35 |
> the patch worked into g-d-s, I'd strongly ask that the changes to |
36 |
> development sources be reverted. |
37 |
|
38 |
Ok, it's reverted now. |
39 |
|
40 |
Any timeline for sending the patches to me for g-d-s? If you have a |
41 |
pointer to them, I'll add them myself. |
42 |
|
43 |
thanks, |
44 |
|
45 |
greg k-h |
46 |
|
47 |
-- |
48 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |