1 |
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 03:15:05PM -0600, Jason Wever wrote: |
2 |
> Can we please get a consistent answer on 2.6 kernels when it comes to |
3 |
> sparc? We used to have sparc-development-sources, which we were told to |
4 |
> consolidate into development-sources. Now today with absolutely 0 |
5 |
> notification what-so-ever, our patchsets to development-sources were |
6 |
> yanked because it wasn't the appropriate place. |
7 |
|
8 |
Sorry for the stress. There really isn't a kernel team anymore, becides |
9 |
me and a few others, and we all seem strung accross different timezones |
10 |
these days. |
11 |
|
12 |
Here's the answer: |
13 |
- development-sources are clean kernel.org kernels |
14 |
- gentoo-dev-sources are the current 2.6 kernel trees for all |
15 |
arches. There is no cesspool of patches in there, and it is |
16 |
the kernel for the ppc64, amd64, x86, and a few other arches. |
17 |
Making it the sparc kernel too is no big deal. |
18 |
|
19 |
This is needed so that bugs and security fixes that previously have not |
20 |
gotten put into the d-s package get applied across all arches quickly |
21 |
and easily. |
22 |
|
23 |
I am willing and able to help the sparc team (and any other arch) to |
24 |
make the g-d-s package work for them. |
25 |
|
26 |
Is that acceptable? |
27 |
|
28 |
thanks, |
29 |
|
30 |
greg k-h |
31 |
|
32 |
> |
33 |
> So what is the appropriate place? Can you as a team please come up with a |
34 |
> singular answer and at least consult all those who will be effected |
35 |
> *before* you change your mind and implement those changes? |
36 |
> |
37 |
> Thanks, |
38 |
> -- |
39 |
> Jason Wever |
40 |
> Gentoo/Sparc Co-Team Lead |
41 |
> |
42 |
> -- |
43 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
44 |
|
45 |
-- |
46 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |