[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Standard Linux (Was What is up with Redhat 7.0?)
> 'Standard Linux'  
> Should the core kernel define a standard Linux??

To an extent.

I will tell you the rules I try to follow for 2.2.x

o Never add an ABI that is not standardised in 2.3.x by Linus
o If drivers/ioctl interfaces are added to 2.2 first I try to be very
fussy about them because an ABI is hardest to fix

> And what does the community think of distros that veer from the standard?
> Should the 'standard' be set in stone?

I certainly don't want it set in stone. All of a sudden I then become some kind
of multi-vendor approval service. That is wrong.

> ie should we say that ALL distros have to ship with, and be compatible with the
> standard kernel? If a distro has a patch that they want in the kernel, and the
Compatible with yes, but without additional features - I think thats bad. The
Linux Standard Base project is about defining a standard 'Linux' - which might
btw equally be a fully compliant Linux emulation on FreeBSD for all it matters
to application vendors.

> (Side Note: had one of my sysadmins that needed to install a server with a DAC960 Raid
> controller.. The standard Linux kernel had no support for it so he had a choice.

Im confused there. Leonard has been submitted DAC960 patches to the standard
kernel first since 1.2. or so.

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 12:39    [W:0.343 / U:4.808 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site