From: Stephen Frost (sfrost_at_snowman.net)
Date: Thu 17 Feb 2005 - 19:34:24 GMT
* Herbert Poetzl (herbert_at_13thfloor.at) wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 01:55:10PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Perhaps not as much as lkml, but Debian isn't developing the kernel,
> > just trying to maintain it. A better comparison would be to the
> > feedback RedHat or Suse gets.
>
> yes, and if you sum up all the distros feedback regarding
> the kernel then you might compare it to the feedback the
> mainline kernels get ... which IMHO is superior to any
> distribution specific feedback ...
Yet distribution kernels are almost *certainly* tested more and running
on more end-user machines than vanilla kernels.
> > My only issue is with you appearing to recommend kernels with serious
> > known bugs over Debian kernels with a claim about more testing and
> > because vserver patches patch cleanly with 'vanilla' (ie: released, imv)
> > kernels.
>
> 90% of all 'supposed to be' linux-vserver issues are
> debian issues (I'm still confident that this will change
> in the near future), but all linux-vserver testing is
> currently done with the mainline kernels and patches, so
> it is natural that I recommend them over 'self' patching
> them ontop of vendor specific patches, especially if they
> tend to release newer kernels with older versions ;)
This is an unfortunate consequence of the current state of the Debian
vserver package, which fewer and fewer people are using (thankfully).
Of course, the state of the Debian vserver package is a direct
consequence of linux-vserver "unstable" labeling, which isn't exactly
something we have a whole lot of say over, though I've been bitching
about it for months anyway.
> > If people are really interested I'll provide a vserver patch
> > which patches cleanly against Debian sources.
>
> would be great, just make sure that the following is true:
>
> - folks know where to get them, and do not adapt the
> mainline patches themselves
>
> - 'your' patches keep up with 'our' development/bugfix
> cycle (i.e. you track the prereleases and rcs too)
>
> - you get some decent testing on the 'adapted' debian
> version before you put them in the wild
I'll let the Debian vserver maintainer handle official Debian
kernel-patch packages for vservers or help if he asks for it, which will
follow your suggestions above. At the moment though, that's not me, so
if I put a patch out there it'll be whatever I'm currently using (and
hence, have tested) and people might have to dig a bit to find them.
It also won't be in Debian kernel-patch format as I wouldn't really want
people to get the wrong impression about those patches.
> this has worked before, so I'm pretty sure it is possible
> again, and as I said, I have absolutely no problem with
> a debian kernel patch, if it is maintained and tested ...
I'd really like to see the official Debian packages updated and uploaded
w/ decent kernel-patch packages but unfortunately we still have
something of a stand off between the current Debian maintainer and
linux-vserver upstream regarding the state of linux-vserver and if it's
'unstable' or 'stable'.
I thought this was being worked on and I'm a little disappointed at the
lack of comment from those who'd been working on it.
Stephen
_______________________________________________
Vserver mailing list
Vserver_at_list.linux-vserver.org
http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver