From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from baikonur.stro.at ([213.239.196.228]:56916 "EHLO baikonur.stro.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757014AbZDARfb (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:35:31 -0400 Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 19:32:36 +0200 From: maximilian attems Subject: Re: Comments on deb-pkg patch series Message-ID: <20090401173236.GZ3901@baikonur.stro.at> References: <20090401162320.GY3901@baikonur.stro.at> <200904011907.31585.elendil@planet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <200904011907.31585.elendil@planet.nl> Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Frans Pop Cc: linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, Andres Salomon , tytso@mit.edu, sam@ravnborg.org On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 07:07:29PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > On Wednesday 01 April 2009, maximilian attems wrote: > > Sam can you please merge 1-6 of the series as those are not contested. > > thanks. > > I continue to object to patch 4. your objection on patch 4 is disregarded. > > the patches were submitted to the relevant subsystem, > > no need to flood lkml with such. > > However, they are also patches with a fairly general impact that should be > reviewed by more people than just the narrow group that is subscribed to > kbuild. lkml is the generic list and is often CCed in such cases. AFAIK > most kbuild patches go through lkml. > It's just chance that I saw these and was able to comment. come on, i pointed out this thread to you. it is enough to post to relevant maintainer list. subscribe to linux-fs if you interested in vfs changes and so on.. > > > [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. > > That still does not change the fact that when I build directly from git > head or whatever other git branch or downloaded upstream source the > binary package is *not* built from the linux-2.6 source package. > > Therefore setting source to linux-2.6 is factually incorrect. no it is not more incorrect then setting to linux. we don't care about corner cases, but go for the general one: git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git cd linux-2.6 make make deb-pkg it does *not* matter that linux-2.6 happens to be same name than the debian linux images source package. [ snipping discussion of patch 7 that will get reworked ] -- maks