spec hacks for vanilla and git-based kernel rpm builds

[Dave Jones]

On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 07:27:17PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

 > > I'd still really like us to ship 2.6.23 for f8, but with the shorter
 > > devel schedule, it's unclear if it's going to land upstream in time.
 > > We've shipped -rc's as GA kernels before, but I always felt 'dirty' for
 > > doing this (especially when we name them incorrectly).
 > 
 > I'd say it's unlikely that 2.6.23 is not ready in time for F8. Some
 > statistics that lead to my opinion:
 > 
 > 2.6.18 took 94 days to develop
 > 2.6.19 took 71 days
 > 2.6.20 took 66 days
 > 2.6.21 took 80 days
 > 
 > 2.6.22 is about 5-7 days away afaics; so it will have had around 73 days
 > to get finished.
 > 
 > Final devel freeze for F8 currently is 24 October 2007 -- that's 114
 > days away from now; minus those ~6 days until 2.6.22; that leaves around
 > 108 days for 2.6.23 to mature in time for the F8 freeze. I'd say that
 > should work out when I look at the numbers from recent kernels found above.

The concerns I have is that summertime is usually a slower period.
People go to conferences, summits, beaches a lot more, so it could
drag out a little.  But based on your numbers, there is quite a bit
of room for lag in there, so it's still plausible that we'll make
it by October.

 > > Shipping it with 'rc3' or whatever in the title seems a little more
 > > honest at least about what we're shipping, and at the same time,
 > > it prevents bad reviewers from writing "Fedora still ships with a 2.6.22
 > > kernel".
 > 
 > A proper kernel naming would help there as well (e.g. name the kernels
 > just as upstream -- e.g. 2.6.23-rc[1-7]{,.git[0-9]*). ;-) Yeah, this old
 > topic again that never got solved.

Indeed. That's what Jarod was proposing to fix no?

	Dave

-- 
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk