On Sun, 18 May 2003 16:52:54 +0200, Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I also wonder if there are efforts in progress to unify the kernel
> source through more than two architectures? This would require a
> group or architecture maintainers (current kernel package
> mantainers) to work collaboratively towards this goal.
When I first envisaged the kernel source and kernel-patch
system, I always figured there should be a single source package per
version -- the one you get from kernel.org. *EVERY* arch, including
i386, should provided a kernel-patch package with all the changes for
their arch based on the pristine kernel source.
There is also a mechanism to order the order in which
kernel-patches are applied -- so if, say, a m68k kernel image
maintainer wanted to create a patch relative to the i386 patches,
they could depend on that patch, and order the m68k kernel-pacth to
be applied later in the chain than the i386 patch.
This dependency-and-ordering mechanism could be extended to
third party modules.
People interested in hammering out details of this mechanism,
and kernel image maintainers, please contact me; perhaps it is time
to create policy for kernel patches.
manoj
--
Chip Salzenberg sent me a complete patch to add System V IPC (msg, sem
and shm calls), so I added them. If that bothers you, you can always
undefine them in config.sh. :-) --Larry Wall in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
