Messages in this thread |  | | From | Keith Owens <> | | Subject | Re: The tainted message | | Date | Sun, 28 Apr 2002 11:41:30 +1000 |
| |
On 27 Apr 2002 20:27:07 -0500, Richard Thrapp <rthrapp@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >On Sat, 2002-04-27 at 19:27, Keith Owens wrote: >> On Sat, 27 Apr 2002 16:20:03 +0100 (BST), >> Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote: >> >How about >> > >> >Warning: The module you have loaded (%s) does not seem to have an open >> > source license. Please send any kernel problem reports to the >> > author of this module, or duplicate them from a boot without >> > ever loading this module before reporting them to the community >> > or your Linux vendor >> >> I'm going for the current message followed by "See <URL> for more >> information". <URL> defaults to http://www.tux.org/lkml/#s1-18, >> vendors who want to point to their policy text can override the URL >> when they build modutils. > >Why did you tell me to ask here and go with what Alan said if you >weren't going to listen to the discussion? Alan's message corrects all >of the problems we found. Several people agreed on the basic form. If >you weren't going to go with the agreed upon result, why did you have me >ask here? You just wasted a lot of our time. You should have just told >me earlier that you weren't going to correct it -- I would have accepted >the decision.
The discussion was useful. I choose to agree with the people who suggested a URL rather than with Alan's suggestion of an expanded message. It allows vendors who want to support their customers directly to add a reference to their policy and remove the load from l-k.
That is what discussion is for, to bring out possibilities. If you don't like my decision you are free to ship and maintain your own modified version of modutils.
>I get sick and tired of maintainers who solicit opinions and then refuse >to listen to the answers they get back, even when people who know what >they are doing agree... even when the majority agrees. I've seen it >happen many times. I know it's the maintainer's choice in the end, but >don't ask for community opinions unless you're going to listen to them. >It's insulting and infuriating.
Translation: "I don't like the decision so I will complain about the maintainer". See above.
>I provide a module, not a distribution. I've found that people want to >choose their distribution, even sometimes in embedded space, so I let >them (and I have no interest in providing a distribution anyway). I >cannot control what modutils they run. But I get bug reports back on >the module due to the tainted message.
That is one of the many costs you have to bear for shipping binary only modules. I am not going to make life easier for you. In your original message to me you made no mention of the fact that you are shipping binary only modules, if I had know that in advance I would not have tried to help you, now you have no credibility with me.
>At the very least, -please- change the verb tense of the message to be >correct. That will at least eliminate the "module doesn't load" bug >reports (I hope).
The verb tense is correct. The message is issued before the module is loaded and descibes what is about to occur.
- 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/
|  |