[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:0.034 / U:10.400 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site