From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IGwG1-0002PI-Jy for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:27:54 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l73CQxNW024592; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 12:26:59 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l73CP3T0022338 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 12:25:03 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4252E65322 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 12:25:02 +0000 (UTC) From: Mike Frysinger Organization: wh0rd.org To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 08:25:37 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <46AFC734.2000702@gentoo.org> <46B2B118.4060503@gentoo.org> <46B2E623.6070209@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <46B2E623.6070209@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1293879.Hb8Mt3FbLR"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200708030825.37579.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: b8455cde-3f06-4a9e-b2aa-5d90c4479878 X-Archives-Hash: 6a5f89a767da8f074e8d379c8534dd6d --nextPart1293879.Hb8Mt3FbLR Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On Friday 03 August 2007, Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote: > Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> my point though wasnt to knock ati (although it was fun), the point was > >> that i do not believe any closed source driver in our tree should ever > >> be grounds for preventing stabilization of a kernel ebuild > >> > >> so next time dsd (or whoever the ninja kernel maintainer happens to be > >> at the time) says "hey i plan on stabilizing Linux x.y.z" and someone > >> goes "wait, you cant until we get > >> working", the reply is of course "blow it out your arse^H^H^H^Htalk to > >> the package maintainer, this will not hold up stabilization efforts" > > > > If we're gonna go with this policy here, I'm also going to adopt it for > > X so we don't get stuck in limbo as happened fairly recently. > > If we're going to do this, we should just keep the unfree drivers in > testing. i dont think that logically follows the previous argument -mike --nextPart1293879.Hb8Mt3FbLR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.5 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUARrMewUFjO5/oN/WBAQIEmxAAgfSU0igAWLBwyCcM1WOlxyMfRrUS7GBx vwM0Lh6ihNtntpSLjPHYLhy/8NTJ00GDnvxNaSvDYleoku+BvlC+QLRQkvERhrC/ 9op5PyYVzEsisiZ0eC0UIn0D/PgKtg/K2xdTlKVcl5aai2UXlEMPF5BzYyujmViN kVan3g/1XjGO58KEBl0l2rmk7DszWvwlr3AEqCy3D/HHAoG0vh5gff8jbMyo5bED YSbJI49+bUx4UdWBzo3I7Wh/8SiyIwx6OEL2N3H4Fq6m0t9puYeeKuHpQKHHShD4 g98vEGSmncn1xVubnVrUiGn23niLXjs1hJ+yBKwzkQJ5SLKh4m3SyTIDA+SESXEK FFTiuVkEJxbhwr8lsCsZdRGRSOuTGBKEwsOUtktuN373+0dsvfcrxhzuSyRC26i3 MVCIYhPS+IBHfdcHLPHe436gBwLPTYhCfeeLjepQihGW3hJpTAucJhDlWYbgvjVg uJdOyp13s1W9RBP9FJ1Div+Pj99bbyCr4SIZYUpkxp43HaIvLX/sepAhngAnnf99 k2VfI+RP3+m/Cb/+Q2+YIfQ6eVfXC4lKo3CO3a+31syWOl4MpN/nkYQ/8is79dhZ awoQ7y6hD1N0SUbvOX/c/btpqRRCJb/sVF42JeSjUT8hyLMUfRBR5Rkr5j1qoutE P/d6tEmezAU= =KHKr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1293879.Hb8Mt3FbLR-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list