[lkml]   [1999]   [Jul]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 2.2.5-15 aic7xxx problem?
    On Sat, Jul 17, 1999 at 04:24:29PM +0100, Riley Williams wrote:

    > > Grr, when did this turn into a RedHat support list?
    > Who said it had?

    An observation: a lot of questions and answers about RedHat specific kernels
    which I can't see are relevant here.

    > To be honest, my understanding is that ALL of the distributors who use
    > packaging systems provide packages with patched versions of the
    > sources,

    Yes: I was not criticising RedHat for doing this, particularly.

    > and the fact that they are patched doesn't stop them being
    > Linux.

    No, but it renders bug reports about them pretty much useless on _this_
    _list_. Bug reports for the official Linus trees and maybe Alan's tree are
    relevant, because everyone can get and is likely to already have them. Most
    people haven't got a clue what has been stuffed into the shipped kernels
    provided with RedHat, Debian, SuSe, Caldera `Open' Linux. Bug reports and
    questions for those kernels should go to the vendors; the vendors can then
    report issues here if they discover them to be in the official tree as well.

    > Normally, the patches in the kernel packages either work their
    > way back into the kernel source tree soon after (which accounts for
    > well over 90% of such patches),

    I agree -- I'm not particularly criticising the existence of the patched
    versions (after all, that's the whole point of OSS/GPL'd/free code); I just
    don't think the bug reports belong here.

    > from makes NO difference whatsoever once it has been installed: The
    > resulting system is LINUX.

    It's derived from the code that Linus makes available and has dubbed 'Linux',
    yes. Can you imagine 'phoning up a car manufacturer and complaining about
    some problem with the engine, and then adding "of course, I've customised it
    myself quite extensively.."?

    > Those patches are almost inevitably included in the following kernel
    > release.

    Again: I don't have a (particular) problem with the patches being applied.
    I do object to seeing potentially vendor-specific bug reports on this list.

    > > But it would help if the bug reports talked about "2.2.5-ac2"
    > > instead of "2.2.5-22".
    > My inderstanding of the differences between 2.2.5-15 and 2.2.5-22 is
    > that the latter consists of the former patched with SOME of the
    > patches in the 2.2.5-ac series, plus SOME of the patches generated by
    > Andrea Archangel, some generated by Peter Anvin, etc., and that ALL of
    > the differences made their way into the kernel tree by 2.2.7, although
    > not all were in there for 2.2.6.

    > It would therefore be WRONG to refer to it as being 2.2.5-ac2 (it
    > isn't), or in fact to refer to it as anything other than 2.2.5-22.

    Yes: you've over-snipped my quote -- either that or I didn't make myself
    clear. I was enquiring *if* RH only put the -ac patches into their kernels,
    and suggested that if this was true then they should change the labelling.
    As you have pointed out, that's not the case, so the suggestion's irrelevant.

    > > AIUI Alan is dealing with the stable series now anyway...
    > Is he?

    I think so; there was a remark in one of Linus' posts a few days ago that
    suggested Alan was dealing with 2.2.x patches; it makes sense, really: he
    works for one of the biggest distribution vendors, so he's presumably going
    to see a lot of bug reports.

    %DCL-MEM-BAD, bad memory
    VMS-F-PDGERS, pudding between the ears

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:53    [W:0.026 / U:1.848 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site