Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Standard Linux (Was What is up with Redhat 7.0?) | From | Gary Lawrence Murphy <> | Date | 01 Oct 2000 00:45:58 -0400 |
| |
There is no need for a law requiring a 'standard' kernel in any distro, and there is no chance people would follow any such rule.
So long as people know their distro kernel is patched and, if they want to apply some 3rd party patch, we advise them they may want to obtain and install 'clean' sources from kernel.org. This is the approach I take in my kernel-config chapters for the Unleashed books, and it is also the advice given on the RedHat website (or at least it was last I looked)
Anyone who knows they need and will apply a 3rd party patch likely knows how to obtain and compile a fresh kernel (or can follow my chapter ;)
A case in point is the Trelos Win4Linux windows 'emulator'. This is shipped as a patch against what I call "the cannonical sources" and fails on some of the more exotic distros. Frankly, I don't think Trelos should bother shipping 'distro flavours' of their patch, and instead, distros should ship a diff-set which would incrementally migrate cannonical sources to match their distro package. That way, if I want Trelos' software, I get the kernel.org sources, patch them for Trelos, then selectively add what I want from RedHat or Mandrake or Debian or whatever. IMHO, this has a far greater chance of success across a wider range of scenarios.
However it goes, though, it is not our problem, it is entirely up to the distros to sort this out among themselves and the ISVs.
-- Gary Lawrence Murphy <garym@linux.ca>: office voice/fax: 01 519 4222723 T(!c)Inc Business Innovation through Open Source http://www.teledyn.com M:I-3 - Documenting the Linux kernel: http://kernelbook.sourceforge.net "You don't play what you know; you play what you hear." --- Miles Davis - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |