Sheevaplug Kernel packages - backports.org vs people.debian.org/~tbm/orion vs tbm snapshots

[debian.arm.nospam]

Hello list,

for a Sheevaplug, what is the difference between the linux-image-kirkwood
packages on backports.org (lenny-backports) vs. the
people.debian.org/~tbm/orion repository (vs the snapshots announced
here on the list)?

Are the bpo kernels maintained by the same person(s) maintaining the
p.d.o/~tbm/orion ones? Currently I'm running a snapshot kernel on
one sheevaplug and a bpo kernel on another, and occasionally
apt-get wants to "upgrade" to a different repository, so I'm unsure
what exactly the difference is. For example, right now backports
has version "2.6.30-6~bpo50+1" which ~tbm has "2.6.30-8".

Thanks!


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-arm-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Martin Michlmayr]

* debian.arm.nospam@... <debian.arm.nospam@...> [2009-10-09 13:54]:

> for a Sheevaplug, what is the difference between the linux-image-kirkwood
> packages on backports.org (lenny-backports) vs. the
> people.debian.org/~tbm/orion repository (vs the snapshots announced
> here on the list)?
>
> Are the bpo kernels maintained by the same person(s) maintaining the
> p.d.o/~tbm/orion ones? Currently I'm running a snapshot kernel on
> one sheevaplug and a bpo kernel on another, and occasionally
> apt-get wants to "upgrade" to a different repository, so I'm unsure
> what exactly the difference is. For example, right now backports
> has version "2.6.30-6~bpo50+1" which ~tbm has "2.6.30-8".

 - p.d.o/~tbm/orion is my Orion/Kirkwood repo in which I put packages
   that Orion/Kirkwood users on lenny may need.  The kernel in there
   is simply a copy from the Debian unstable and I update it whenever
   I feel that the kernel in unstable is ready.

 - backports.org is a service that "back ports" packages from unstable
   to lenny.  Whereas I copy the kernel from unstable, they actually
   recompile it on lenny.

 - The snapshots announced on this list are snapshots of the
   development tree, i.e. RC releases of the next kernel.  These are
   for testing and not for normal use.

Now the question p.d.o/~tbm/orion vs backports.org: I don't think it
matters a lot.  In fact, I could probably copy the kernel from
backports.org rather than unstable to the Orion repo.  But since the
kernel from unstable works fine on lenny, I don't think it matters.
OTOH, maybe it would reduce confusion if I used the kernels from
backports.org.

Comments on this welcome.
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-arm-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[debian.arm.nospam]

On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 11:10:07 +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:

> * debian.arm.nospam@... <debian.arm.nospam@...> [2009-10-09 13:54]:
> > for a Sheevaplug, what is the difference between the linux-image-kirkwood
> > packages on backports.org (lenny-backports) vs. the
> > people.debian.org/~tbm/orion repository (vs the snapshots announced
> > here on the list)?
> >
> Now the question p.d.o/~tbm/orion vs backports.org: I don't think it
> matters a lot.  In fact, I could probably copy the kernel from
> backports.org rather than unstable to the Orion repo.  But since the
> kernel from unstable works fine on lenny, I don't think it matters.
> OTOH, maybe it would reduce confusion if I used the kernels from
> backports.org.
>
> Comments on this welcome.

Thanks for the summary. I'm mostly concerned about which of the two
repositories (yours and bpo) are most likely to be up to date wrt
security patches etc. For example, it was hard to know which of those
had the patch for the recent null pointer vulnerability in <= 2.6.30.4.

Also, are there any extra marvell-specific patches in your orion repo,
or are the bpo packages configured and patched identically?

Finally, regarding stable vs unstable, personally it doesn't matter
but if there's a difference in gcc versions used, then I guess maybe
the unstable kernels may cause trouble if there is a need to
compile 3rd party kernel modules?

And, thanks again for your efforts :)



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-arm-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Martin Michlmayr]

* debian.arm.nospam@... <debian.arm.nospam@...> [2009-10-10 12:25]:
> Thanks for the summary. I'm mostly concerned about which of the two
> repositories (yours and bpo) are most likely to be up to date wrt
> security patches etc.

I'm not sure how up-to-date bpo is.  I must admit that I definitely
lag behind unstable from time to time, but I can try to improve that.

> Also, are there any extra marvell-specific patches in your orion repo,
> or are the bpo packages configured and patched identically?

Some of the packages have patches, but not the kernel.  With the
kernel, I put everything in unstable first.  In other words, the Orion
repo and bpo really use the same source code.

> Finally, regarding stable vs unstable, personally it doesn't matter
> but if there's a difference in gcc versions used, then I guess maybe
> the unstable kernels may cause trouble if there is a need to
> compile 3rd party kernel modules?

Hmm, that's a good point.  I guess I need to look into bpo and see if
it makes sense to use their kernels.

Thanks for the suggestion.
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-arm-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...