From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1R8b8Z-00052m-E3 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 17:08:07 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6C8EA21C22D; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 17:07:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bw0-f53.google.com (mail-bw0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F00F221C1D8 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 17:07:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkbzt12 with SMTP id zt12so9095886bkb.40 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 10:07:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zHsUFefm2fXm4TI9JyVsZpx1uY+uENNNNe7nUjCLIJ4=; b=hkji+HjfjeoabPhqkFULKCV9i47zrp+ZqeI6DwQXg0JipnuL84zmMJXqBJ6+uQhMck AdnKWlq4/6I4QAqu+PMrdPU4WV/21Rpk5oGGd0Px5qQKXIJsPo5xRKLt9C08n25PZjlw F2dTNL1btwVKlmEagl/sNyDVwp5LqcYbh/hrQ= Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.132.87 with SMTP id a23mr212706bkt.285.1317143223007; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 10:07:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.177.199 with HTTP; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 10:07:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1331399.V0JPsD72Y5@localhost> References: <4E80D466.7010804@coolmail.se> <4E8114F0.8080608@orlitzky.com> <1331399.V0JPsD72Y5@localhost> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 13:07:02 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless... From: Michael Mol To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 10c5049f84888255dc58459d255c39d6 On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > Am Dienstag 27 September 2011, 04:05:31 schrieb Grant Edwards: >> That sounds good, but in practice it doesn't work. >> >> =C2=A01) The kernel developers don't support any existing customers. =C2= =A0Bugs >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 are only fixed for customers who are willing to run the ne= xt >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 kernel verison. =C2=A0I've got customers that are still ru= nning 2.4 >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 kernels. 2.6.18 is still widely used. =C2=A0Will the kerne= l developers >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 add new features, support for new hardware, or fix bugs fo= r those >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 customers. =C2=A0Not a chance. > > so what? There are long term stable kernels with no api changes. Hmm... Except they have drivers which are buggy and require backported fixes. >> =C2=A02) The kernel developers only make sure that drivers compile. =C2= =A0They >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 don't have the hardware or knowlege required to actually t= est >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 them. =C2=A0One of our drivers _is_ in the kernel. =C2=A0S= ure, it builds, >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 but AFAIK, it hasn't actually worked for at least 10 years= . > > and nobody complains on lkml about it - seems that nobody uses your hardw= are. Except his customers. Who are going directly to him for support. > If something stops working (called a 'regression' btw) it has to be fixed= . > Linus is very clear about that. That's all well and good, but it doesn't fix things that weren't working correctly in the first place. Upstream kernel doesn't backport fixes, that's what distros and people like Grant, for their customers. And Linus's statement as quoted in that article (and my snippet) doesn't include one important caveat: Sometimes, they drop support for things that either have no maintainer, or are obsolete and difficult to keep. >> Trying to maintain two drivers (one in-kernel and one out-of-kernel) >> just creates twice as much work for no gain. > > then don't be outside the kernel. If we take your position, in this context, to its logical outcome, it sounds like you're saying that distributions like Gentoo, Red Hat and Debian shouldn't maintain older kernels with backported fixes. There exist systems which cannot be upgraded with financial sanity; the existing install works well enough that it would cost more to upgrade. The reasons might be that they're using an old software package which was abandoned, and taking ownership of the code isn't always sane. I was actually approached by someone in my area a couple weeks ago who was in just this kind of scenario. --=20 :wq