1 |
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: |
2 |
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 05:48:13PM +0100, Daniel Drake wrote: |
3 |
>> John Mylchreest wrote: |
4 |
>>> Since were bunlding these whole now, should we just start naming the |
5 |
>>> ebuilds correctly instead? |
6 |
>> I don't think so. 2 -stable releases in the 2.6.15 cycle didn't have any |
7 |
>> immediate corresponding gentoo-sources bump since the patches were |
8 |
>> already included. The fact that we include patches alongside -stable |
9 |
>> means that using their notation isn't entirely accurate in our situation. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Both naming schemes have their advantages, but I see more |
12 |
> disadvantages with using the 2.6.x.y naming scheme in gentoo-sources |
13 |
> than I see advantages (primarily the reason Daniel stated above). |
14 |
> |
15 |
> I suggest we keep the current naming scheme for gentoo-sources, as it |
16 |
> seems most correct. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> Regards, |
19 |
> Brix |
20 |
|
21 |
fwiw, I've got mips-sources modified to follow the upstream kernel.org notation |
22 |
of 2.6.x.y (even though our primary upstream, linux-mips.org, doesn't utilize |
23 |
this notation at all). |
24 |
|
25 |
There's logic in the ebuild that can switch between using -rc, point releases |
26 |
(the .y ones) and standard versions, and it modifies the logic to fetch the |
27 |
appropriate patch(es) from upstream to save on what we need to upload to the |
28 |
gentoo mirrors. |
29 |
|
30 |
Been following this since ~2.6.12, and we haven't had any issues with the |
31 |
versioning in portage or reported from users. mips-headers even uses it now. |
32 |
|
33 |
|
34 |
--Kumba |
35 |
|
36 |
-- |
37 |
Gentoo/MIPS Team Lead |
38 |
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees |
39 |
|
40 |
"Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands |
41 |
do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere." --Elrond |
42 |
-- |
43 |
gentoo-kernel@g.o mailing list |