Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 8 May 2001 03:15:11 -0400 | From | "Eric S. Raymond" <> | Subject | Re: CML2 design philosophy heads-up |
| |
Jamie Lokier <lk@tantalophile.demon.co.uk>: > Which is unfortunately wrong if you want the parport subsystem on x86 > but won't be using the parport_pc driver with it. I.e. you'll be using > some other driver which isn't part of the kernel tree. Perhaps a > modified version of parport_pc, perhaps something else.
If you're integrating drivers that aren't in the kernel tree, you can and should patch the CML2 rulebase to compensate. So your patch for the modified driver should comment out the PARPORT_PC==PARPORT requirement. Problem solved.
More generally, arguments of the form "Non-mainline custom hack X could invalidate constraint Y, therefore we can't have Y in the rulebase" are dangerous -- I suspect you could reduce your set of constraints to nil very quickly that way, and thus badly screw over the 99% of people who just want to build a more or less stock kernel. -- <a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>
The abortion rights and gun control debates are twin aspects of a deeper question --- does an individual ever have the right to make decisions that are literally life-or-death? And if not the individual, who does? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |