On Sun, 2003-04-06 at 19:04, Austin wrote: > On 2003.04.06 21:05 Brian J. Murrell wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 01:36:09AM +0100, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > > > Yes - can we please decide exactly what this kernel is for? At first it > > > was simply the stock kernel with a couple of patches for music editing. > > > > Well, I saw it as more "multi-media" than just "music editing". > > Multi-media, whether it be audio or video (or both) have much the same > > requirements. > > Yes. It is called the multimedia kernel, not the music editing kernel. > > > > Now it seems to have turned into a test bed for features that have > > > nothing to do with "multimedia" (wireless driver patches?) > > > > This I will agree with. > > Well, we're in a bit of a predicament, because it has been recently very > difficult to achieve effective communication from the kernel team, so I > certainly don't blame Danny for fixing things that are obviously broken - be > they multimedia or not. That's not to judge whether it's right or wrong, but > you have to understand that it's very frustrating telling staff that > something's broken for MONTHS and not having it fixed. > > > > And now you > > > want it to provide stuff for doing PVR. > > > > I agree that it should be the stock kernel + multimedia needs (ONLY!). > > I don't want it to be a "hackkernel" either. > > In my mind, the multimedia kernel is used when desktop functionality is more > important than security. There are security risks involved with the > pre-emptive patch, and even moreso with the capabilities patch, but someone > making videos doesn't care... he wants his editing done as fast and > efficiently as possible. > > So I'd suggest this: > The multimedia kernel is not just for audio/video editing, it is for boxes > which are more concerned with advanced USABILITY than with security, > stability, support, or official status. > Thus supermount fixes are fine. They enhance usability greatly, with a small, > potential loss to stability and/or security. > > That's just my take on it. I don't feel volunteers should just go adding any > patch they want... there must be a significant benefit. However, this is a > way that: > 1. Mandrake can come to terms with a more community oriented infrastructure... > and see that it works. > 2. Purely desktop users can get fast, easy useability. > 3. Mandrake won't have to assume resposability for potentially risky patches. > > Hope that puts some of your minds at ease. > I'm far from the autoratative voice on this subject though... > > Austin
One question though... why does the kernel have a dependency on shorewall?
