[ adding Theodore Ts'o on CC ] Sam can you please merge 1-6 of the series as those are not contested. thanks. On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 06:07:56PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > Below some comments on the patch series submitted yesterday by Maximilian > Attems. I was not subscribed to the kbuild list, so apologies for > breaking the thread. It would have been nice if the patches had been CCed > to lkml for general review. > > I have some patches of my own that I'll submit later today. great. the patches were submitted to the relevant subsystem, no need to flood lkml with such. > FYI: Like Max I am a DD, but unlike him I'm not a member of the kernel > teamm. I have however been using the deb-pkg target intensively over the > past year and a half for all my kernel testing on 4 different arches. > > General comment: > It looks to me as if this patch series is trying to make the deb-pkg > target into something it is not. It is not a target that produces perfect > and Debian policy-compliant packages. Instead it is a very basic method > to create an installable kernel image package direct from upstream > source. i strongly disagree, why shouldn't it build policy complian packages. > [PATCH 1/7] deb-pkg: Beautify changelog > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kbuild&m=123851278623264&w=2 > > > - * A standard release > > + * New upstream release > > In my own patch series I have an alternative, which IMO better matches the > purpose of deb-pkg: > - * A standard release > + * Custom built Linux kernel. > > The name and email changes seem somewhat overengineered to me, but > otherwise no objection. well this nitpicking, anyway no strong objection on a follow up to my patch anything but "A standard release" sounds better. usually you will need make deb-pkg due to newer upstream and is the standard opening of our changelogs ;) > [PATCH 2/7] deb-pkg: Fix Provides field > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kbuild&m=123851274923192&w=2 > > No objection. > > [PATCH 3/7] deb-pkg: bump standards version > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kbuild&m=123851275023204&w=2 > > As deb-pkg only creates binary packages and does not have a source > package, the created package is not actually source compliant. Instead of > updating the Standards-Version field we could also simply drop it (as it > is not strictly required). IMO it's fairly bogus anyway and would make > for one less thing to maintain. > > No strong objection though. as we want it policy compliant better say to which one. > [PATCH 4/7] deb-pkg: Fix Section and Source field > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kbuild&m=123851275123210&w=2 > > I strongly disagree with this patch. > > linux-2.6 is the source package for official Debian kernels and packages > built using deb-pkg are NOT built from that source package. > IMO there's no need to change it (the field is required and thus cannot > simply be dropped). If it does want changing for some reason I'd suggest > "linux-upstream" or similar. no, just checkout linux-2.6 git and you'll get per default a matching linux-2.6 dir, so your arg does not stand. > [PATCH 5/7] deb-pkg: Generate a debian/copyright > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kbuild&m=123851274923195&w=2 > > As the generated package is not policy compliant anyway, I see see no real > reason to burden it with a copyright file. No strong objection though. > > > +Copyright: 1991 - 2008 Linus Torvalds and others. > s/2008/2009/ > > +git://git.eu.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git > s/eu.// > > Also, the git reference is somewhat random as deb-pkg can just as well be > used to build kernels from any other source tree (stable, mm, tip, ...). well a follow up can s/2008/2009/ better have the most important git tree mentioned then none. > [PATCH 6/7] deb-pkg: Fix generated packagename > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kbuild&m=123851275023201&w=2 > > This is not actually a "fix". There's nothing really wrong with the > current package name, and I actually like the fact that packages built > using deb-pkg are in a somewhat different namespace than the official > Debian kernel image packages. > > I'd prefer to leave this unchanged, but have no hard objection. no the name is wrong, but as you don't have an objection... > [PATCH 7/7] deb-pkg: generate changelog, copyright and control on demand > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kbuild&m=123851275123207&w=2 > > NAK! > > This completely breaks the most common use case of deb-pkg. This patch > would mean that every package would get identical (and incorrect) version > info in the Debian maintainer files unless you manually clean the debian > directory before each build. > One of the really great things of deb-pkg is that you can simply > repeatedly call it after checking out different branches (and cross-build > for different arches) or during bisections without having to worry about > such things. big non non to your arguments. this is explicitly been asked for make deb-pkg, private follow ups to https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2008-discuss/2008-June/000191.html an rm -rf debian would regenerate them anyway, but i see your args and be interested how one can support both, the throwaway generation and keeping specific debian/ files. -- maks -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
