On tis, 2008-08-19 at 21:50 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > >I guess it's pretty obvious where I stand on out-of-tree kernel > >patches. :P > > No, but that very sentence makes me assume that you dislike it.
I think that out-of-tree packages/modules are just that because they usually lack quality. When the upstream project is very active like the linux kernel I don't see a reason for Debian to bypass the QA provided there. A larger problem though is the lack of (enough) maintenance for out-of-tree patches/modules. This becomes more of a problem as time passes by. Greg KH does a much better job then I could ever do trying to explain why anyone thinking he can maintain something outside of the kernel is not living in reality, so I recommend this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2SED6sewRw These problems and more combined is why I don't think out-of-tree kernel patches/modules are suitable for our _stable_ release. Fedora actually adopted a policy for this recently which I think would be a very good idea if Debian did as well. > So what was your argument again? My arguments is that the examples you give for advantages of this package are nice ideas, but none actually works in practice currently (anymore). The user will only waste time by using the package rather then fetching the patches from the upstream homepage. Additionally the user will get information about which kernel versions the patches actually have a chance of working with when visiting the upstream homepage. I don't see a point in discussing it any more. I don't think I can make any of my arguments any more clear, atleast not in english. -- Regards, Andreas Henriksson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
