| 1 |
On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 14:24:54 -0700 |
| 2 |
Greg KH <gregkh@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > but suppose people |
| 5 |
> > want BFQ? Why can't we have it in gentoo-sources. It is totally |
| 6 |
> > disabled by not selecting CONFIG_BFQ. Selecting it is no different |
| 7 |
> > than emerging pf-sources with the same other options ported over. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Until you run into a patch that modifies code outside of it's CONFIG_ |
| 10 |
> option, like the aufs example I pointed out. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
It would be policy to not add such patches, unless wrapped with config |
| 13 |
checks by a script; further more, I discussed USE=-experimental with |
| 14 |
mpagano and he found this separation a good idea, we can split this into |
| 15 |
a third experimental tarball to not surprise non-Gentoo users as well. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
mpagano as well as I stand completely behind that gentoo-sources must |
| 18 |
remain usable for production servers; which this USE flag fulfills, as |
| 19 |
well as separate from all of this to use live ebuilds in our testing to |
| 20 |
avoid surprises that even our non-experimental genpatches could bring. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
(For those in #gentoo-kernel, that conversation happened there) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
With kind regards, |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
| 28 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
| 31 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
| 32 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |
Archives