Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
Am Freitag, 19. März 2004 17:32 schrieb Kees Cook: > On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 10:03:55AM +0100, Philipp Reisner wrote: > > are you going to maintain these patches ? -- At least for now ? > > I'm happy to maintain the 2nd if the first can be put into CVS. I tried > to make sure it wouldn't break the existing build process. It makes > putting it into the kernel tree muuuch easier. ;) > > Is there anything bad about the first patch? I'm happy to clean it up as > you see fit. Hi Kees, I have to admit that I did not realized in the first run that the first patch was meant to be applied, and that it does not conflict with the module build. I realized that by now and I am up to applying it. But: I am thinking about making the include directory a sub-directory of drbd which would lead to: drbd/drbd_*.c drbd/[include/]linux/drbd.h drbd/[include/]linux/drbd_conf.h * As far as I understand the woes of the packet maintainers, they would like to see all the sourced for building the modules in one tree. * And a symlink in the root directory of the distribution tarball, so that people see the drbd_conf.h in the uppermost directory. * Actually the [include/] part in the path is not necessary, so I am thinking about omitting it. Lars, David, Philipp: Any oppinions on how the sources should be layed out, from the viewpoint of a package maintainer ? -Philipp -- : Dipl-Ing Philipp Reisner Tel +43-1-8178292-50 : : LINBIT Information Technologies GmbH Fax +43-1-8178292-82 : : Schönbrunnerstr 244, 1120 Vienna, Austria http://www.linbit.com :