[arch-dev-public] [signoff] udev-145-1

[Andreas Radke]

Am Sun, 23 Aug 2009 23:10:54 +1000
schrieb Allan McRae <allan at archlinux.org>:

> Jan de Groot wrote:
> > On Sun, 2009-08-02 at 21:08 +0200, Tobias Powalowski wrote:
> >   
> >> Hi
> >> bump to latest udev version, please test it well.
> >> Has many new things included, which also dig in glib2 and libusb
> >> depend.
> >>
> >> greetings
> >> tpowa
> >>     
> >
> > To bump this thread:
> >
> > - udev 145 contains .la files, they should be removed
> > - Allan has to patch glibc to support older kernels with signalfd
> >
> > When this is done, we need to move:
> > - e2fsprogs
> > - util-linux-ng
> > - udev
> > - hal
> > - initscripts
> > - glibc
> >
> > I don't know what's allan's schedule is for this, but I could
> > release a glibc package with just that patch included. We have
> > quite some stuck packages due to the old util-linux-ng and udev in
> > core at this moment. 
> 
> Please go ahead and release a glibc with that patch.  I am quite busy
> at the moment so probably will not get to Arch stuff until later next
> week...
> 
> Allan
> 
> 

Hm. IMHO this would break our own patching rules though it may be
helpful here. We usually don't apply patches for unsupported packages.
And we currently only have one kernel to support in our repos. So I
thinking that patch would not be allowed.

I'm thinking about adding a long requested 2nd kernel back to our
repos. It would be the wanted "fallback" when core kernel would fail
booting after rebooting. I'd like to maintain myself a "longlife"
upstream supported kernel that is right now kernelseries 2.6.27.xx with
maybe all 3rd party modules + Xen support if possible. We should be
able to support this 2nd kernel for a longer time with our udev and
mkinitcpio until next longlife version will be ready. This one would
become the recommended kernel for server usage (not sure if it should
become a different preempt setting). We could have it either in core as
2nd one but extra would be also ok to me and would save us signoffs in
case of quick security fixes. Not sure if it shoul be a choice for the
iso.

Opinions?

-Andy