| 1 |
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 12:45:15AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 19:36:46 -0400 Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@g.o> |
| 3 |
> wrote: |
| 4 |
> | Joel Konkle-Parker wrote: [Fri Jul 16 2004, 06:30:53PM EDT] |
| 5 |
> | > As an interested desktop user, I'm curious about the devs' opinions |
| 6 |
> | > on this recent thread in gentoo-user: |
| 7 |
> | > |
| 8 |
> | > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.user/89620 |
| 9 |
> | |
| 10 |
> | I think it's safe to say that ciaranm is engaging in hyperbole in his |
| 11 |
> | assertion that "Everyone agrees gentoo-sources is full of garbage". |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Hm? Not really. That was a direct quote from one of the kernel team. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> (Note: if gentoo-sources now includes 2.6.x kernels, that was referring |
| 16 |
> to the 2.4.x set) |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> The 2.6.x patchset is a *lot* cleaner. I'm not the only dev who still |
| 19 |
> has strong objections to at least one of the patches that's included in |
| 20 |
> there, however. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Which one, supermount? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
As of right now, there are only 4 "features" added to the g-d-s kernel |
| 25 |
package, all for very good reason. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> For reference: gentoo-sources (2.4) rarely worked on either of my x86 |
| 28 |
> boxes. gentoo-dev-sources (2.6) works on both as of 2.6.7. Before then I |
| 29 |
> had to manually revert a patch to avoid a solid lock before init came |
| 30 |
> up. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Before 2.6.7, the g-d-s package was managed by a different developer |
| 33 |
than it currently is :) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
thanks, |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
greg k-h |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives