On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:26:35PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Ville Syrjälä <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 03:41:16PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > > Geoffrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I am not against Linux, however I don't like the way the Linux kernel > > > > > developers > > > > > personally attack people who tell them where they make mistakes. > > > > > > > > > > Let me make an example: if you take Linus Torvalds statements on > > > > > Linux kernel > > > > > include files for serious, then it is _forbidden_ to test kernel > > > > > interfaces. > .... > > > Well, first note that glibc does not even know about most kernel > > > interfaces, > > > the include files that come with glibc are much older than the linux > > > kernel. > > > If I add a new interface to the linux kernel today or if I enhance an old > > > one, > > > I cannot test it in case I am only allowed to use the include files from > > > glibc. > > > > Whose preventing you from testing it? For your testing you can do > > anything you like. However when distributing the program it would help > > the distro people if you just used the standard /usr/include path. > > You did not understand it: > > - If you need to break a rule on a regular base it is nonsense.
I actually agree that it would be nice to have clean public kernel headers that would be used by both userspace and kernel. But that's not how it works. > - Linux decided to _need_ /usr/src/linux/unclude in the search PATH. > It was needed for Linux-2.2 or earlier I'm pretty sure that would be 2.0 or earlier. > and such a decision cannot > ever be changed later. It was changed seven years ago. > > I did find one message from you where you said some operations were > > impossible due to the filter but when asked for a list of required > > commands you did not respond. > > I send a list and I told them that this list is a constand subject to change. > Then the LKLM folks stopped to be reasonable I couldn't find such a list in lkml archives. I do understand that the approach has it's problems but unless you change cdrecord not to drop CAP_SYS_RAWIO I don't think there's a good alternative. > > Other than that I've only seen you give vague references to Linux bugs > > but no useful bug reports. > > I do never _repeat_ long descriptions I send before. > > > NOTE: it turns out that you are not helpful at all and only like to waste my > time. Wasting your time is actually my day job. > Unless you are able to help with the problems please stop your postings. I'm starting to think you're beyond help. -- Ville Syrjälä [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sci.fi/~syrjala/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
