Re: Sending speakup upstream

2010-09-11 Thread Samuel Thibault
Hello,

Apparently your mail isn't getting to the speakup mailing list for some
reason, so I'm trying to forward it:

Ben Hutchings, le Fri 10 Sep 2010 04:44:59 +0100, a écrit :
 I'm a member of the Debian Linux kernel team.
 
 We have a general policy that any features added to the kernel package
 should already have been accepted for inclusion in some later upstream
 version of Linux.  If a driver has not been accepted then it should be
 packaged separately.  We have made an exception for speakup so that it
 can be used during installation, but we do not want to carry this patch
 indefinitely.
 
 I talked to Greg Kroah-Hartman about this briefly and he would welcome a
 submission of speakup for inclusion under 'staging'.  Is there any
 reason not to do this?

One issue still pending is that speakup pokes the serial i/o ports
itself, but apart from that it could be a good idea, yes.

Samuel


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100911213442.gy5...@const.famille.thibault.fr



Sending speakup upstream

2010-09-09 Thread Ben Hutchings
I'm a member of the Debian Linux kernel team.

We have a general policy that any features added to the kernel package
should already have been accepted for inclusion in some later upstream
version of Linux.  If a driver has not been accepted then it should be
packaged separately.  We have made an exception for speakup so that it
can be used during installation, but we do not want to carry this patch
indefinitely.

I talked to Greg Kroah-Hartman about this briefly and he would welcome a
submission of speakup for inclusion under 'staging'.  Is there any
reason not to do this?

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part