[arch-dev-public] kernel-2.6.27-lts possible changes?
Hi guys, just looked at kernel26-lts PKGBUILD and config files. I have locally modified it to also split the headers out from standard package, as the stock kernel PKGBUILD does. - Adding xen pvops would make sense on a so called server kernel. http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps I can't test this myself but according to the link above i guess it's safe to enable it. It's now also enabled in .32 kernel 64 bit kernel. - Since the last pkgver it is possible now to build binary modules against the lts kernel, without the need of rebuilding them on every small bump. Imho it would make sense to provide the same binary modules for this kernel as we do for the stock kernel. Do you have any other thoughts or objections? If i get some input from you and you agree to the above, i could put this stuff tomorrow to testing repository. greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa@archlinux.org
Am Mittwoch 16 Dezember 2009 schrieb Tobias Powalowski:
Hi guys, just looked at kernel26-lts PKGBUILD and config files.
I have locally modified it to also split the headers out from standard package, as the stock kernel PKGBUILD does.
- Adding xen pvops would make sense on a so called server kernel. http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps I can't test this myself but according to the link above i guess it's safe to enable it. It's now also enabled in .32 kernel 64 bit kernel.
- Since the last pkgver it is possible now to build binary modules against the lts kernel, without the need of rebuilding them on every small bump. Imho it would make sense to provide the same binary modules for this kernel as we do for the stock kernel.
Do you have any other thoughts or objections?
If i get some input from you and you agree to the above, i could put this stuff tomorrow to testing repository.
greetings tpowa
Anyone? -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa@archlinux.org
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 7:00 AM, Tobias Powalowski <t.powa@gmx.de> wrote:
Am Mittwoch 16 Dezember 2009 schrieb Tobias Powalowski:
Hi guys, just looked at kernel26-lts PKGBUILD and config files.
I have locally modified it to also split the headers out from standard package, as the stock kernel PKGBUILD does.
- Adding xen pvops would make sense on a so called server kernel. http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps I can't test this myself but according to the link above i guess it's safe to enable it. It's now also enabled in .32 kernel 64 bit kernel.
- Since the last pkgver it is possible now to build binary modules against the lts kernel, without the need of rebuilding them on every small bump. Imho it would make sense to provide the same binary modules for this kernel as we do for the stock kernel.
Do you have any other thoughts or objections?
If i get some input from you and you agree to the above, i could put this stuff tomorrow to testing repository.
greetings tpowa
Anyone?
Hmm, I don't use the lts kernel, so I can't really answer, but it seems ok to enable the pvops stuff. Regarding shipping modules, I think that's a very good idea, but it's more work
Am Freitag 18 Dezember 2009 schrieb Aaron Griffin:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 7:00 AM, Tobias Powalowski <t.powa@gmx.de> wrote:
Am Mittwoch 16 Dezember 2009 schrieb Tobias Powalowski:
Hi guys, just looked at kernel26-lts PKGBUILD and config files.
I have locally modified it to also split the headers out from standard package, as the stock kernel PKGBUILD does.
- Adding xen pvops would make sense on a so called server kernel. http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps I can't test this myself but according to the link above i guess it's safe to enable it. It's now also enabled in .32 kernel 64 bit kernel.
- Since the last pkgver it is possible now to build binary modules against the lts kernel, without the need of rebuilding them on every small bump. Imho it would make sense to provide the same binary modules for this kernel as we do for the stock kernel.
Do you have any other thoughts or objections?
If i get some input from you and you agree to the above, i could put this stuff tomorrow to testing repository.
greetings tpowa
Anyone?
Hmm, I don't use the lts kernel, so I can't really answer, but it seems ok to enable the pvops stuff.
Regarding shipping modules, I think that's a very good idea, but it's more work
Well modules only needs to be rebuild on update, which happens rarely. Nvidia drivers bump relativly often, but the others are not bumping every one or 2 months. greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa@archlinux.org
participants (2)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Tobias Powalowski