On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 04:53:58PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> Al Viro wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:18:36AM +0200, Zolt?n HUBERT wrote:
> > > And as I understand it, this is (was ?) the whole point of
> > > stable/development kernels. "We" can trust a newer stable
> > > kernel to be a drop-in replacement for an older stable
> > > kernel (from the same series), while development kernels
> > > need time to stabilise with the new whizz-bang-pfouit stuff
> > > that you all so nicely add.
> >
> > "Drop-in" in which sense? That out-of-tree modules keep working?
> > Not really...
>
> Al, be reasonable. There are many out-of-tree GPL modules that won't be
> accepted into mainline, never mind those that shouldn't be accepted. But
> these modules do have a right to not be obsoleted by constant API changes.
"have a right" are strong words.
Who is granting them this right?
> You are effectively inhibiting the development of an out-of-tree GPL module
> pool, by constantly pulling the rug under that community.
>
> Do you think this is fair?
Why are these modules not submitted for inclusion into the kernel?
> Thanks!
> Al
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
