From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Jones Subject: Re: Options depending on STANDALONE Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 17:01:30 -0400 Message-ID: <20060803210130.GJ16927@redhat.com> References: <20060803205127.GC10935@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:44493 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751388AbWHCVDv (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Aug 2006 17:03:51 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060803205127.GC10935@kroah.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Greg KH Cc: "Brown, Len" , Adrian Bunk , Zachary Amsden , Arjan van de Ven , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Christoph Hellwig , Rusty Russell , Jack Lo , v4l-dvb-maintainer@linuxtv.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 01:51:27PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 04:49:08PM -0400, Brown, Len wrote: > > I've advised SuSE many times that they should not be shipping it, > > as it means that their supported OS is running on modified firmware -- > > which, by definition, they can not support. Indeed, one could view > > this method as couter-productive to the evolution of Linux -- > > since it is our stated goal to run on the same machines that Windows > > runs on -- without requiring customers to modify those machines > > to run Linux. > > Ok, if it's your position that we should not support this, I'll see what > I can do to remove it from our kernel tree... > > If there are any other patches that we are carrying that you (or anyone > else) feel we should not be, please let me know. It's somewhat hard to tell when the source rpm's don't match the binaries. See ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/kernel/kotd/x86_64/HEAD for example, and notice the lack of 2.6.18rc3 source, just 2.6.16. Or am I looking in the wrong place ? (The other arch's all seem to suffer this curious problem). Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk