From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:49646 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750999AbZBYR6m (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:58:42 -0500 Message-ID: <49A586CE.7030600@gmx.de> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:58:38 +0100 From: wk MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hans Verkuil CC: linux-media@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: POLL: for/against dropping support for kernels < 2.6.22 References: <200902221115.01464.hverkuil@xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <200902221115.01464.hverkuil@xs4all.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > Should we drop support for kernels <2.6.22 in our v4l-dvb repository? > > _: Yes > _: No > > YES. > Optional question: > > Why: > I assume that the main goal should be development of linux v4l/dvb drivers to be included in *new* kernel versions. These dont need compat code. But beside of the main goal there are requirements and other goals - simplify development and save time (skip) - keep code as easy as possible (skip) - having as many testers as needed (don't skip or choose kernel version suitable) - support of linux users who aren't able to update (either dont skip or provide backports in regular intervals. still easier to implement) looking at this it will hurt only users from embedded hardwrae, but at least a bunch of them cannot compile modules anyway. Might be solved by (i.e. yearly) backports. Would be also interesting which kernel versions are used by list members.