From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14111 invoked from network); 16 Jul 2004 23:47:42 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 16 Jul 2004 23:47:42 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BlcQW-0002wK-VD for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 16 Jul 2004 23:47:41 +0000 Received: (qmail 17762 invoked by uid 89); 16 Jul 2004 23:47:40 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 10725 invoked from network); 16 Jul 2004 23:47:40 +0000 Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 00:45:15 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Message-Id: <20040717004515.729ec5a7@snowdrop.home> In-Reply-To: <20040716233646.GA28780@violet.grantgoodyear.org> References: <20040716233646.GA28780@violet.grantgoodyear.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.11claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; boundary="Signature=_Sat__17_Jul_2004_00_45_15_+0100_My.zcq_sW5coxRpl" Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Kernel sources thread X-Archives-Salt: eaa95c77-974f-4a21-a5c0-5c1122fcadfc X-Archives-Hash: a9d12dd013bae156191b35735db8d14a --Signature=_Sat__17_Jul_2004_00_45_15_+0100_My.zcq_sW5coxRpl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 19:36:46 -0400 Grant Goodyear wrote: | Joel Konkle-Parker wrote: [Fri Jul 16 2004, 06:30:53PM EDT] | > As an interested desktop user, I'm curious about the devs' opinions | > on this recent thread in gentoo-user: | > | > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.user/89620 | | I think it's safe to say that ciaranm is engaging in hyperbole in his | assertion that "Everyone agrees gentoo-sources is full of garbage". Hm? Not really. That was a direct quote from one of the kernel team. (Note: if gentoo-sources now includes 2.6.x kernels, that was referring to the 2.4.x set) The 2.6.x patchset is a *lot* cleaner. I'm not the only dev who still has strong objections to at least one of the patches that's included in there, however. For reference: gentoo-sources (2.4) rarely worked on either of my x86 boxes. gentoo-dev-sources (2.6) works on both as of 2.6.7. Before then I had to manually revert a patch to avoid a solid lock before init came up. -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Sparc, MIPS, Vim, Fluxbox) Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm --Signature=_Sat__17_Jul_2004_00_45_15_+0100_My.zcq_sW5coxRpl Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFA+GiN96zL6DUtXhERAksYAKCJ3Y3gmUT74jrGV+hGusuaaJUyDACbBPnn zhPAjMqJq13wKYA3jzMjS7c= =VaIB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Sat__17_Jul_2004_00_45_15_+0100_My.zcq_sW5coxRpl--