| 1 |
looking for some clarification here.... |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
is development-sources a pure kernel.org 2.6.x kernel or not? |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
shouldn't vanilla-sources always reflect the current kernel.org stable |
| 6 |
kernel version, with a seperate branch for (deprecated is a bad term |
| 7 |
here) 2.4.x kernels? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
If the above statement were true (vanilla == kernel.org) we wouldn't |
| 10 |
need development-sources at all, correct? if vanilla were to adopt the |
| 11 |
"latest kernel.org non-rc" status, development-sources could be removed |
| 12 |
and a 2.4 branch could be added, resulting in 0 extra -sources. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
IMHO, g-s should be the latest kernel.org sources that have been "proven |
| 15 |
stable" with patches X,Y,Z, while g-d-s would be the testing ground for |
| 16 |
g-s... could this also be accomplished keywording g-s accordingly, |
| 17 |
negating the necessity of g-d-s if this were the case? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
personally, I think ck and mm need not be in portage... if someone wants |
| 20 |
to take the risk of running such sources, said person should be |
| 21 |
perfectly capable of applying the patches. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
sorry if this is a little OT, but it seems the state of *-sources is in |
| 24 |
a bit of disarray from my point of view... also take note that I'm only |
| 25 |
considering x86 here, since I have little (read virtually zero) |
| 26 |
experience with kernels outside the scope of x86..... |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
and I mean no disrespect to the gentoo kernel devs :) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
--Wade |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives