Re: [gentoo-dev] proposed patch

Re: [gentoo-dev] proposed patch

[Aaron Walker]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Johan Swensson wrote:
> I would like to suggest that you add https://sourceforge.net/projects/sbs-linux/
> to genpatches. It would be nice. And the code SEEMS pretty stable.
> Atleast for my laptop :)

http://bugs.gentoo.org/

- --
My way of joking is to tell the truth.  That's the funniest joke in the world.
		-- Muhammad Ali

Aaron Walker <ka0ttic@gentoo.org>
[ BSD | cron | forensics | shell-tools | commonbox | netmon | vim | web-apps ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCGbkyC3poscuANHARAiR0AKC2Q+/BXCGxyvdvf7gaj9Hfj/FD8gCgxaCW
GC0FQa5s4Epm4pjV/zb9QeY=
=9m1M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] proposed patch

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 08:09:08AM +0100, Johan Swensson wrote:
> I would like to suggest that you add https://sourceforge.net/projects/sbs-linux/
> to genpatches. It would be nice. And the code SEEMS pretty stable.
> Atleast for my laptop :)

<stock answer when people ask for new patches to be added to the gentoo kernel>

No.  Get the authors to submit the patch to upstream, and then it will
show up in the Gentoo kernel, as well as all other kernels.

</stock>

If you submit a bug, it will get marked with the same response...

thanks,

greg k-h
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] proposed patch

[Drake Wyrm]

At 2005-02-21T09:58:45-0800, Greg KH <gregkh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 08:09:08AM +0100, Johan Swensson wrote:
> > I would like to suggest that you add
> > https://sourceforge.net/projects/sbs-linux/ to genpatches. It would
> > be nice. And the code SEEMS pretty stable. Atleast for my laptop :)
> 
> <stock answer when people ask for new patches to be added to the
> gentoo kernel> No.  Get the authors to submit the patch to upstream,
> and then it will show up in the Gentoo kernel, as well as all other
> kernels. </stock>
> 
> If you submit a bug, it will get marked with the same response...

So what about patches that the kernel maintainers have specifically
decided to exclude, such as the TARPIT target for iptables? This handy
module is implemented as part of the iptables Patch-O-Matics. Some of
the POMs are a bit unstable, but this one is kept out of the main kernel
tree for political reasons. Some purists consider it to be "protocol
abuse".

I have specific interest in the TARPIT patch, but in a more general
sense, it's just an example of the many fine patches available for the
kernel. It really seems quite un-Gentoo-ish (whatever that means) to so
blanketly dismiss them.

What say ye?

-- 
Batou: Hey, Major... You ever hear of "human rights"?
Kusanagi: I understand the concept, but I've never seen it in action.
  --Ghost in the Shell
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] proposed patch

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 07:01:20PM -0800, Drake Wyrm wrote:
> At 2005-02-21T09:58:45-0800, Greg KH <gregkh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 08:09:08AM +0100, Johan Swensson wrote:
> > > I would like to suggest that you add
> > > https://sourceforge.net/projects/sbs-linux/ to genpatches. It would
> > > be nice. And the code SEEMS pretty stable. Atleast for my laptop :)
> > 
> > <stock answer when people ask for new patches to be added to the
> > gentoo kernel> No.  Get the authors to submit the patch to upstream,
> > and then it will show up in the Gentoo kernel, as well as all other
> > kernels. </stock>
> > 
> > If you submit a bug, it will get marked with the same response...
> 
> So what about patches that the kernel maintainers have specifically
> decided to exclude, such as the TARPIT target for iptables? This handy
> module is implemented as part of the iptables Patch-O-Matics. Some of
> the POMs are a bit unstable, but this one is kept out of the main kernel
> tree for political reasons. Some purists consider it to be "protocol
> abuse".

And, because of that, I will always defer to the upstream kernel
maintainers, like I would hope that you also would.

Are you willing to put the time and effort in to maintain, forward port,
and handle all possible bug reports in the kernel area that is touched
by this patch?  I didn't think so :)

> I have specific interest in the TARPIT patch, but in a more general
> sense, it's just an example of the many fine patches available for the
> kernel. It really seems quite un-Gentoo-ish (whatever that means) to so
> blanketly dismiss them.

Not at all, this is the gentoo kernel philosophy.  I think we even have
a web site that specifies this somewhere...

thanks,

greg k-h
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] proposed patch

[Drake Wyrm]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1716 bytes --]

At 2005-02-21T23:40:52-0800, Greg KH <gregkh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 07:01:20PM -0800, Drake Wyrm wrote:
> > At 2005-02-21T09:58:45-0800, Greg KH <gregkh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 08:09:08AM +0100, Johan Swensson wrote:
> > > > I would like to suggest that you add
[...]
> > > No.  Get the authors to submit the patch to upstream, and then it
> > > will show up in the Gentoo kernel, as well as all other kernels.
> > > </stock>
> > > 
> > > If you submit a bug, it will get marked with the same response...
[...]
> > but this one is kept out of the main kernel tree for political
> > reasons.
> 
> And, because of that, I will always defer to the upstream kernel
> maintainers, like I would hope that you also would.

We certainly have a difference of opinion on that point. I tend to have
an instintive negative reaction toward technical decisions influenced by
political motives.

> Are you willing to put the time and effort in to maintain, forward
> port, and handle all possible bug reports in the kernel area that is
> touched by this patch?  I didn't think so :)

This is actually an excellent illustration of my point. The patch I
mentioned as an example changes almost nothing. It adds one file and
touches the makefiles so that the build process notices it. Its
inclusion would be completely benign.

All I'm trying to say is that, while a critical eye should be placed on
patches considered for the kernel, a stubborn refusal to even consider
changes may be excessive.

-- 
Batou: Hey, Major... You ever hear of "human rights"?
Kusanagi: I understand the concept, but I've never seen it in action.
  --Ghost in the Shell

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] proposed patch

[Collins Richey]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 03:55:06 -0800, Drake Wyrm <wyrm@haell.com> wrote:

> This is actually an excellent illustration of my point. The patch I
> mentioned as an example changes almost nothing. It adds one file and
> touches the makefiles so that the build process notices it. Its
> inclusion would be completely benign.
> 

Sit back in your chair and think about that at least twice! I've been
working in the computer industry for 30+ years, and I can't even begin
to count the times when a total outage was followed by the excuse "But
I just changed one line!".

-- 
 Collins
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list