Re: Elaboration on "Equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree"

[Stefan Richter]

Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 7:27 AM, Stefan Richter
> <stefanr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>> OK small silly example is convincing distributions it may be a good
>>> idea to carry linux-next kernel packages as options to users to
>>> hopefully down the road reduce the delta between what they carry and
>>> what is actually upstream.
>> Distros would do their users a bigger favour if [...]
> 
> I don't think I was very clear in what I meant about "carrying
> linux-next kernel packages as an option". What I meant was carrying it
> just as an option for those users who want to test bleeding edge
> without compiling their own linux-next, _not_ to merge linux-next
> things into their own default kernel release and shove it down users
> throats.

Sorry, I meant "bigger favour" relative to carrying an own delta of
considerable size.

Packaging linux-next would be fine if the workload isn't a problem for
the packager.  As pointed out elsewhere, there are caveats with
linux-next (e.g. a functionality which was in it yesterday could be gone
today because of a merge issue), but that's the nature of bleeding edge
of course.
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-==--= --== ---==
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/