On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 01:24:22 -0400
Jon Masters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 13:22 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 04:09:57PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
I advocate extreme caution before just willy-nilly building
everything into the kernel.
On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 01:34 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
for certain types of choices the answer is going to be oh
now you need to compile your own kernel;
Yay!
In the RHEL world the rules are a bit different due to the
really long release cycles (even for hw support updates)
Indeed,
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 01:34:33AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
for certain types of choices the answer is going to be oh now you need
to compile your own kernel; there's just too many config options for
that not to be the case.
Of course for the normal, common scenarios that's not the right
On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 10:25 -0400, Kyle McMartin wrote:
if a user is rebuilding their libata subsystem and replacing the
modules, or replacing their alsa modules, or whatnot, they've already
voided the i'd like to help you implied contract in open source, so
they should just go run and
On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 10:33 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Jon Masters ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
Which means that third parties will end up getting into the kernel
rebuilding business if their modules are unloadable. Suddenly you have
users running many different builds of the same Fedora
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 10:33:14AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
Yay! So then one day we can look forward to everything being built in
and a user wanting to build a webcam driver having to build their own
kernel too. Then we'll really have won because that user - who can
follow some
Jon Masters ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
Really? Do you have actual stats for the number (percentage) of Fedora
users that *actually* need to update their modules (as opposed to following
some blindly ridiculous message-board advice...)
Nope. I'm just taking the viewpoint that users
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 10:38:12AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
Nope. I'm just taking the viewpoint that users shouldn't be artificially
restricted from doing so.
At the point where someone suggests building something into the kernel
purely in order to prevent users building an out of tree
