Management of the lpia configuration

[Steve Conklin]

On 03/30/2009 12:44 PM, Michael Casadevall wrote:
> I'm aware that due to the kernel packaging that lpia's config and the
> i386 config files will always be physically separate but it would not
> be difficult to modify the update rule to simply copy the generic
> config to lpia when doing edit or update configs. However, as this is
> for karmic, I'll work on determining the needed kernel config for d-i
> this cycle, and post a git tree with the necessary changes.
> Michael
> 
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Tim Gardner <tim.gardner at canonical.com> wrote:
>> Loïc Minier wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009, Michael Casadevall wrote:
>>>> replace the lpia configuration with the i386 generic config
>>>  I don't mind the general idea, but I feel it's a high risk option at
>>>  this point of the cycle; unless the lpia config was recently butchered
>>>  heavily in an unfixable shape, I'd rather defer that to karmic and
>>>  tweak the current lpia confir to work with d-i.  But then it's the
>>>  kernel team's decision in all cases.
>>>
>> I agree with Loic in that I prefer incremental changes to the Jaunty
>> LPIA config.
>>
>> As for Karmic, due to the way the kernel package is structured and the
>> fact that LPIA is treated as a separate architecture, the LPIA config
>> files will always be separate from i386.
>>
>> rtg
>> --
>> Tim Gardner tim.gardner at canonical.com
>>
>> --
>> kernel-team mailing list
>> kernel-team at lists.ubuntu.com
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
>>
> 

Some drivers in the hardy lpia are required to not be built in so that
they may be superseded, so wholesale copying of the i386 config probably
isn't acceptable. If you have a list of specific modules, we'll have a
look. If you can have that list by tomorrow, we can discuss it at
the kernel sprint, when most of the people who have a strong opinion
about this will be in one place.

Steve