| 1 |
Greg KH <gregkh@g.o> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
[ ... ] |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> The arch specific ones should have maintainers, the arch |
| 6 |
> maintainers. The patchset specific ones are (in my opinion) pretty |
| 7 |
> much pointless. Sure, some people like them, but it seems like a |
| 8 |
> strange way to track a -mm or -aa or -ck kernel using a ebuild. But |
| 9 |
> that's just my opinion. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
personally, I find it very practical to have emerge fetch and patch |
| 12 |
the patchset-kernels I use -- I run -mm and occasionally test -ck. |
| 13 |
this makes it one less thing I have to think about looking for every |
| 14 |
so often, even though I get l-k delivered. ;-) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> Oh, remember, those patchset specific kernels usually never get the |
| 17 |
> security updates that the "supported" kernels do (g-s and g-d-s). |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
"security" is rarely the reason for using patchset-kernels. for my |
| 20 |
part, it's mostly to test the newest and greatest sources with a lot |
| 21 |
of extras. considering FireWire, SATA and a few other tidbits like |
| 22 |
that are used a lot around here, I tend to test tings quite a bit. |
| 23 |
and for the record, I really wish my motherboard had something other |
| 24 |
than Sil3112. SATA compliance with as much fuzz as possible. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
but, since I'm curious... Greg, are you maintaining g-d-s these |
| 28 |
days? if so, I could move a box or two over. SATA shouldn't be a |
| 29 |
problem there, should it? :-) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
oh, and how you find the time to do all that l-k work and Gentoo is |
| 32 |
damn impressive. thank you for all the time you give to us users! |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Terje - who wants to try the hotswap SATA canisters on his server. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives