Collection of patches for om-gta02-2.6.34

Gaudenz Steinlin gaudenz at
Thu Aug 26 14:35:27 CEST 2010

Excerpts from Riccardo Magliocchetti's message of Don Aug 26 11:05:31 +0200 2010:
> Il 26/08/2010 07:31, Timo Jyrinki ha scritto:
> > Well, in the case of Debian it was just recently noted [3] that it
> > would be best to concentrate efforts so that FreeRunner support could
> > become official part of Debian kernel. Therefore it's AFAIK
> > recommended to work on the s3c24xx branch [4], which doesn't boot yet
> > either. It's part of Thibaut Girka's Google SoC, debian-installer
> > support [5].
> >
> > [3]
> > [4];a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/s3c24xx
> > [5]
> >
> > -Timo
> >
> I've read the discussion on list, the problem i have with [4] is that 
> Thibaut is committing patches the way debian kernel maintainers do and 
> not committing directly the code. I think it makes thing complicated, 
> even for him.

If you are refering to the pkg-fso/kernel.git, then this is because
this is not intended as a general kernel development tree. This tree
is only for the Debian packageing of the kernel and therefore follows
the SVN repository layout of the official Debian kernel package. The
goal is to ultimately integrate all changes there into the official
Debian kernel package. Patches commited there should be generated from
another repository (possibly openmokos kernel git repo) to minimize work. 

I agree that this workflow is not optimal. But as long as the official
Debian kernel package is developed this way. It does not make things
easier for pkg-fso to deviate from this scheme. The complete
disconnection of the current pkg-fso kernel package
(linux-image-2.6.29-openmoko) from the Debian kernel package is one
reason why it has not been updated for a long time now.

IMHO all kernel development should be done in the openmoko kernel git

Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter.
Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
~ Samuel Beckett ~

More information about the openmoko-kernel mailing list