Mike's actual problem

Mike (mwester) mwester at dls.net
Thu Aug 7 00:31:12 CEST 2008

Andy Green wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> Hi -
> The discussion about where to put a git hash for versioning is too
> esoteric to get passionate about in itself.  I woke up this morning
> realizing what the actual issue is here.
> Mike would then be able to go on with his kernel binaries on an even
> footing with ours, as packages, and I guess his objection to protecting
> the modules against use by wrong kernel will disappear.

Thanks for thinking of me, but no, it's not all about my site or
binaries.  In fact, I've been thinking about the users of YOUR "andy"
branch rather than anything precompiled.

I already have this solution (and others) to resolve this issue for the
kernels I make available -- but that's just not the way to do it.

Look, if it comes right down to it, it's dead simple for me to create
Yet Another Distro for the Neo, with the kernel handled the way I've
proposed and already implemented -- I have access to OE to do so.  But
there's already way too much confusion, and that course of action seems
to me to be the abandonment of all hope.  Believe it or not, I still
think that I *will* somehow get the GSM kernel patches into the OM
kernel.  And in this case, I'm also very optimistic that those in charge
of packaging will consider the alternates I've proposed.

The bottom line is that in this situation, packaging the git hash
EXTRAVERSION thing into ipkgs is just gift-wrapping a bad idea.

Mike (mwester)

More information about the devel mailing list