lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jun]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Why Linux is doomed (was: Re: FENRIS (nwfs) 1.4.2 Source Code Available)
On 23 Jun 1999 leitner@convergence.de wrote:

> In local.linux-kernel, you wrote:
> > > Let me reiterate some things that happened to me recently:
> > >
> > > 2.2.7 came out, I untarred the distribution, it did not compile. I
> > > had to fix some trivial things that _anyone_ must have seen who
> > > tried to compile the kernel, like an include file that was not
> > > included somewhere. I cannot understand how a kernel like this can
> > > even be put on an FTP site without even trying to compile it on all
> > > platforms.
> > That's where we, who are not kernel developers but like to run the
> > latest kernels come in. Where do you think these kernels come from?
> > They don't grow on trees; People work hard to produce them. I would
> > prefer to see the kernel developers coding rather than wasting large
> > amounts of time testing every config option.
>
> Since a few people tried to tell me that I should not be complaining but
> testing stuff, I am inclined to answer this one publicly.
>
> The point is that I did not ask that Linus try out all combinations
> before posting a new release. He once told some newspaper that
> compiling a kernel on his monster machine takes him unter 10 minutes.
> It should be no problem to compile one fully modularizes kernel and one
> huge everything-compiled-in kernel. If both builds complete, he should
> post the kernel. But there is not much more discouraging that
> downloading a new kernel (even the diffs are quite large), compiling it
> and then getting a syntax error.
>
> > It is the responsibility of the rest of us to submit useful bug
> > reports, and better yet, patches for problems.
>
> Oh, really.
> Duh.
>
> > It works both ways, you see. You get to use the collective work of
> > the kernel developers, essentially for free, but when something fails
> > it is *your* responsibility to do your part to at least submit a bug
> > report. And submitting a bug report requires no particular skill, so
> > anyone can do it.
>
> This is not true.
> See the tons of "I compiled it, you know, and then I copied the kernel,
> you know, and then I ran lilo, you know, and then I booted, you know,
> and then it didn't work." 'bug reports'.
>
> > Granted, on an officially stable kernel, compile errors should not
> > occur, but if they do it is simply because either no one (that means
> > us) bothered to try out the pre series of kernels leading up to it and
> > report the problem.
>
> I don't think it is too much to ask that before you release a kernel,
> you try to compile it. If it is a stable kernel, then compile it twice,
> once with everything as a module, once with everything linked it. That
> should be the bare minimum that just has to be done before you release a
> kernel. Should Linus really be unwilling to do that, then he should
> just post an URL to a /private/ directory here so someone can grab it
> and do both compiles.
>
> > > 4. FAT. 2.3.7 does not compile with FAT file system. Excuse me?
> > > This is the single most frequently used file system besides ext2,
> > > and 2.3.7 does not compile with it? Because of a syntax error?!
> > Details? Details are the difference between a rant and something
> > helpful, useful, and constructive.
>
> It does not compile.
> Details won't help you, since even if I gave you details you would still
> need to verify them and try to compile it yourself and then you would
> notice that FAT does not compile. Please note that I said "does not
> compile" and not "does not work" or "panics at mount time". This is
> some objective bug report that anyone can verify immediately.

2.3.x is clearly marked as development. If you don't wish to see problems
such as this stick with 2.2.x untill 2.3.x comes out. Development
relases are for breaking things.


>
> > Also, does it really surprise you that a development kernel in
> > general, and one in which *major* changes have been made and well
> > publicized, in particular, might have some problems in the areas
> > directly involved in the changes.
>
> Sorry, but if the second most frequently used file system does not
> compile, then don't release it. I am not counting the pseudo file
> systems proc and pts here, obviously.
>
> > > Management summary: stuff like this sucks. I am but a programmer with a
> > > SMP box that likes to run the latest kernel. And yes, I expect all the
> > > kernels to compile out of the box. I don't think that this is too much
> > > to ask.
> > It is not too much to expect other people to give you something that you
> > want, without your incurring even minimal responsibilities?
>
> Huh?
> Please think your answer over.
> It is people like me who do the quality assurance for Linux.
> People like me who complain. And if there is just _one_ goof like the
> FAT problem, there are literally thousands of people who will run into
> this problem and be discouraged to upgrade their kernel in the future.

This would be a good thing. Since development kernels tend to break they
should be used only by people who don't mind a little risk.

Had you actually gotten it to compile you would probably have seen the
disk corruption seen on the filesystems that compile alreaddy. Consider
yourself saved and stick to the stable series.

Gerhard

PS Since I only have 1 box to test these things on I watch the list for
bug repors for 48 hours, if there are none relevent to my setup I upgrade.
This keeps me from jumping into the middle of updates to major portions of
the kernel.




--
gmack@imag.net

As a computer I find your faith in technology amusing.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:52    [W:0.079 / U:0.836 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site