Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Wade Nelson <hollywoodb@××××××××.fm>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Kernel sources thread
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 05:32:46
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Kernel sources thread by Joel Konkle-Parker
1 looking for some clarification here....
3 is development-sources a pure 2.6.x kernel or not?
5 shouldn't vanilla-sources always reflect the current stable
6 kernel version, with a seperate branch for (deprecated is a bad term
7 here) 2.4.x kernels?
9 If the above statement were true (vanilla == we wouldn't
10 need development-sources at all, correct? if vanilla were to adopt the
11 "latest non-rc" status, development-sources could be removed
12 and a 2.4 branch could be added, resulting in 0 extra -sources.
14 IMHO, g-s should be the latest 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?
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.
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.....
28 and I mean no disrespect to the gentoo kernel devs :)
30 --Wade
32 --
33 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Kernel sources thread Greg KH <gregkh@g.o>