[lkml]   [1997]   [Jul]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 2.0.31 : please!
On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Daniel G. Link wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Alan Cox wrote:
> This is not valid for what I said about development kernels. In order to
> test if it compiles, it is only necessary to turn on all options that
> are not mutually exclusive and compile. Kernels 2.1.29 up to 2.1.41 (I
> might be off by 1 or 2) did not even compile with ISDN options activated,
> at least in my case and some other people's. ld complained about
> "undefined references".
> If this would be checked by about 10 people with reasonable configurations
> (recent GCC, binutils), it would not go unnoticed.

Development kernels are development kernels - you should expect *NOTHING*
from them except a multi-meg download and an evening's reading.

> > A lot of people don't seem to realise just how tricky it is building a
> > stable across all platforms/configurations system.
> I do realize that. I'm saying there should be at least *SOME* sanity
> checks before releasing even a "development" kernel.

Why should there be? It's a development kernel - if it breaks you get to
keep both pieces and try to glue them back together.

> If there is a reason why non-compiling code has to be in the kernel
> sources (I would be hard-pressed to find one), then at least there should
> be a file "LATEST_COMPILING_<whatever>_IS_<version number>" in the kernel
> source directory.

That will slow down development, because instead of being able to get
changes into 2.1.x releases for other people to hack on, people will be
forced to implement an entire subsystem themselves.

Leave the non-compiling code in the devel kernels for all I care, it adds
spice to my bland-geek life ;-)

> I don't think it is a good service to the advancement of Linux if released
> kernels do not compile.
> Like I said, I would volunteer to test-compile 2.1.X kernels.

I don't think anyone is stopping you from testing the latest 2.1.45pre
(currently pre10 I think).

> If kernels are not tested in any way, they should be in a different
> directory and be called pre-<Version>.

... and then someone will come along and call them releases and whine
about why they don't compile, etc. etc. Everyone should already know that
2.1.x stuff is not a "release" per se, but more like a snapshot of work in
progress (AFAIK).

This thread needs to end, and someone produces a patch to fix the
problems (real or imagined). :-)

Furiously trying to find a bug to patch for the ob-kernel content,
-- Elliot
What's nice about GUI is that you see what you manipulate.
What's bad about GUI is that you can only manipulate what you see.

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:39    [W:0.188 / U:10.852 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site