From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev-return-13930-arch-gentoo-dev=gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: (qmail 23363 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2004 22:00:27 +0000
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197)
  by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 9 Jul 2004 22:00:27 +0000
Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org)
	by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34)
	id 1Bj3Pu-0006Lb-CE
	for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2004 22:00:26 +0000
Received: (qmail 12679 invoked by uid 89); 9 Jul 2004 22:00:25 +0000
Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev-unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev-subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Received: (qmail 28144 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2004 22:00:25 +0000
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 14:58:32 -0700
From: Greg KH <gregkh@gentoo.org>
To: Gentoo Dev Mailing List <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
Message-ID: <20040709215832.GA6155@kroah.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0407091512440.5899@stargazer.weeve.org> <20040709212736.GA5669@kroah.com> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0407091545560.5899@stargazer.weeve.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0407091545560.5899@stargazer.weeve.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] kernel team:  please make up your mind
X-Archives-Salt: fbae4ff9-67b3-4887-a96e-d45ee3baf9e9
X-Archives-Hash: 1829e644162fa3872618d78bd049df09

On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 03:50:19PM -0600, Jason Wever wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Greg KH wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 03:15:05PM -0600, Jason Wever wrote:
> > > Can we please get a consistent answer on 2.6 kernels when it comes to 
> > > sparc?  We used to have sparc-development-sources, which we were told to 
> > > consolidate into development-sources.  Now today with absolutely 0 
> > > notification what-so-ever, our patchsets to development-sources were 
> > > yanked because it wasn't the appropriate place.
> > 
> > Sorry for the stress.  There really isn't a kernel team anymore, becides
> > me and a few others, and we all seem strung accross different timezones
> > these days.
> 
> That's about the size of most of our teams.  What was so dire about the 
> sparc patch to development-sources that it had to be removed right this 
> instant without consulting both SPARC and your own kernel team?

There was a bug marked for this.  Sorry for being quick on it.  I was
also told a while ago that the sparc team had their own kernel.  I never
thought it was this one (as the metadata file sure didn't say that...)

> > Here's the answer:
> > 	- development-sources are clean kernel.org kernels
> > 	- gentoo-dev-sources are the current 2.6 kernel trees for all
> > 	  arches.  There is no cesspool of patches in there, and it is
> > 	  the kernel for the ppc64, amd64, x86, and a few other arches.
> > 	  Making it the sparc kernel too is no big deal.
> > 
> > This is needed so that bugs and security fixes that previously have not
> > gotten put into the d-s package get applied across all arches quickly
> > and easily.
> > 
> > I am willing and able to help the sparc team (and any other arch) to
> > make the g-d-s package work for them.
> > 
> > Is that acceptable?
> 
> Yes and no.  I'm definitely willing to help work with you to get that 
> patch set in there.  However that doesn't change the fact that the 
> adjustment of the packages today was very bad as it wasn't communicated at 
> all to allow us to at least notify our users that things will change.  
> Removing our patchset can and will cause problems for people who were 
> using development-sources on sparc, and more than just because they have 
> to switch what kernel they use.

But they get security fixes for free with that switch, that's a good
reason to do so :)

> If you want to make changes that's fine, just please consider the 
> ramifications of those changes and let the people who will be effected 
> know with enough time before-hand so that they can do what is needed to 
> help make those migration changes as smooth as possible.

Again, sorry for the speed at which this happened, I am very sorry about
it.

thanks,

greg k-h

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list