Re: [gentoo-dev] kernel team: please make up your mind

[Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2323 bytes --]

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 14:27:36 -0700 Greg KH <gregkh@gentoo.org> wrote:
| 	- development-sources are clean kernel.org kernels

Since when? This is not what we were told when John helped us to move
our sparc patchset from sparc-dev-sources to his shiny new kernel-2
powered development-sources. We were given lengthy assurances that we
would a) be able to keep our sparc patchset there without having to
worry about it b) conflicting with the horridly broken gentoo- patchset
and c) it being repeatedly broken by people doing "security bumps".

We already know that c) hasn't been happening, and our requests for
certain people to show more care when dealing with other archs have
fallen upon deaf ears. Now we're being told that a) and b) are no longer
any good either?

| 	- gentoo-dev-sources are the current 2.6 kernel trees for all
| 	  arches.  There is no cesspool of patches in there, and it is
| 	  the kernel for the ppc64, amd64, x86, and a few other arches.
| 	  Making it the sparc kernel too is no big deal.

Of course it's a big deal. We've already made our users change kernel
sets once. Now we're going to have to go through all this again because
the kernel team don't talk to each other? And you also expect us to deal
with people who assume that anything labeled gentoo-dev-sources will
include the gentoo- patchset?

| I am willing and able to help the sparc team (and any other arch) to
| make the g-d-s package work for them.

This is exactly what John told us when we switched from s-d-s to d-s.
What assurances do we have that we are not going to be screwed over yet
again the next time your team randomly decides to change policy without
informing anyone? We had these promises already about five kernel minor
versions ago.

To be honest, given the history on this, I think the ideal solution for
this would be an arch-dev-sources which was locked in cvs so that
over-zealous x86-kernel and security people *couldn't* go and break our
kernels *yet again*. I really don't like the implications that we don't
trust other developers on this, but having our kernel being broken three
times in two minor version versions is completely unacceptable.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Sparc, MIPS, Vim, Fluxbox)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]