From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: Cross Compiler and loads of issues Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 02:46:36 +0100 Message-ID: <20080614014636.GA32232@shareable.org> References: <7b740b700806121052n2f98dfa4hc96ebfc1be5b6bbf@mail.gmail.com> <20080613092449.GO27937@knossos.aleph1.co.uk> <7b740b700806130500u17bf3adel3b2139e50d7b029f@mail.gmail.com> <0af6abe442d0b93a10a96b27153f04e9.squirrel@www.geekisp.com> <20080613144658.GA21071@shareable.org> <20080613151942.GK11760@nibiru.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080613151942.GK11760@nibiru.local> Sender: linux-embedded-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Enrico Weigelt Cc: Linux Embedded Maillist Enrico Weigelt wrote: > > Contrast with kernel.org: everyone knows where to get a good working > > Linux kernel for the mainstream architectures, and the quality work > > tends to be quite good at reaching mainline there nowadays. > > ACK. But you perhaps remember the discussions on LKML where some > folks wanted to stop this and leave all the QM works to individual > distros. I'm glad this plan was dropped. I'm glad too. I've had to do the reverse: cherry-pick through 2000 patches from distro kernel source packages, to find the good ones for my kernel - bug fixes, driver fixes. It took a long time, and I had to give up before finishing, it was simply too much work. That was 2.4, back when distros did a lot of their own patches, kept outside the mainline kernel. Thankfully, the 2.6 process is much better. -- Jamie