Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:31:19 -0700 | From | Paul Dickson <> | Subject | Re: klibc - another libc? |
| |
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 03:15:59 +0200 (CEST), Roman Zippel wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > > > If you wouldn't remove all old init code at once it would still be > > > possible to build a kernel this way. Why are you making it mandatory? Why > > > don't you leave it optional for a while and only gradually remove the old > > > code? This way distributions/users can experiment with it regarding their > > > current initrd/boot setups. > > > > Linus vetoed that option years ago. > > Name dropping is of course always impressive - scares little kids and all. > Could you please provide more info, what exactly he vetoed?
His rule was no code was to be added to the kernel code unless it already had a user. So there would be no adding code hoping a user would appear.
If I'm wrong, I'll likely be corrected... :-)
-Paul
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |