From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 18:42:42 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 18:42:32 -0500 Received: from zero.tech9.net ([209.61.188.187]:5382 "EHLO zero.tech9.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 18:42:15 -0500 Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.17-pre6 drm-4.0 From: Robert Love To: Keith Owens Cc: linux-ia64@linuxia64.org, lkml In-Reply-To: <4719.1007767953@ocs3.intra.ocs.com.au> In-Reply-To: <4719.1007767953@ocs3.intra.ocs.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Evolution/1.0.0.99+cvs.2001.12.06.08.57 (Preview Release) Date: 07 Dec 2001 18:42:10 -0500 Message-Id: <1007768531.12114.2.camel@phantasy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2001-12-07 at 18:32, Keith Owens wrote: > On 07 Dec 2001 18:27:11 -0500, Robert Love wrote: > >For 2.5, there probably is no intention of keeping that around. But can > >we honestly ditch it in the middle of a stable kernel? Personally I > >don't use it, but its not polite ... > Linus ditched drm 4.0 months ago. It only survives in arch add on > patches like ia64 and in -ac trees. I know. I meant we should continue to support the drm-4.0 package. It's the usual song ... we shouldn't change interfaces or required tools in a stable series, and the least we can do is make 4.0 available somehow, because someone may rely on it. On the flip side, I don't care, and I suspect the people who actually are using DRM are on 4.1 now. Further, if _you_ are maintaining the cruft and it bothers _you_, then stop :) Robert Love