[Linaro-dev] Second "Linaro kernel merge result of the moment" aka "arm_next" published
loic.minier at ubuntu.com
Tue Jul 13 21:51:13 BST 2010
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> OK, I have no problem with that. I don't know the Ubuntu kernel tree
> well myself. I initially thought about merging it as it could contain
> generic features that the Linaro kernel could benefit from. But I don't
> know exactly what those are. And I also wanted to shake out any merge
> issues in the perspective of having the Linaro tree merged back into the
> Ubuntu kernel tree at some point before a release. Maybe it is best to
> keep the Ubuntu kernel free from the Linaro stuff after all. In either
> cases I don't have a strong opinion.
I don't think we actually want to keep the Ubuntu kernel free from the
Linaro stuff, but I think we want to keep the Linaro tree free from the
Ubuntu patches. Ubuntu takes integrates kernel trees like we do, and
we could integrate the patches in the Ubuntu tree which are going
upstream if that's useful to Linaro folks, but since things in the
Ubuntu tree are NOT going upstream like e.g. aufs, we can't pull it
wholesale in our main tree.
It would however make sense to merge with Ubuntu in another tree aimed
at Ubuntu's consumption, or at building Ubuntu-alike images. I also
think we should offer our Linaro changes to Ubuntu ARM topic trees if
they will take them. Let's go over this at the sprint.
> > We need a version of the tree with the Ubuntu stuff merged, as to
> > prepare Ubuntu packages, but our official main arm_next doesn't need to
> > carry the non-upstream Ubuntu bits. (Carrying the Ubuntu bits which
> > are going upstream soon is useful though.)
> They would need to be in a separate branch in the Maverick repository.
Exactly; e.g. linaro-arm branch or linaro branch in
> OK. I'll kick out the Maverick branch from the next rebuild.
More information about the Linaro-dev