Re: RFC: Starting a stable kernel series off the 2.6 kernel

Bill Davidsen
2005-12-06T21:10:10Z

Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 09:58:54AM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
>>If a new udev config is needed with every new kernel, why isn't it in
>>the kernel tarball? Is that what you mean by "broken distro
>>configuration?" The info should be in /proc or /sys and not in an
>>external config file, particularly if a different versions per-kernel is
>>needed and people are trying new kernels and perhaps falling back to the
>>old.
>
>
> Every distro has different needs for its device naming and groups and
> other intergration into the boot process. To force all of them to unify
> on one-grand-way-of-doing-things would just not work out at all.

Did I say that. No, I said it would be desirable to provide a working
config with the kernel, to which something could be symlinked. This no
more "forces" distributions to do anything than LSB. It would provide a
default, it would provide something working, and if I didn't like it I
could change it. But I wouldn't have to try and change thing way up in
initrd so I can boot one kernel or another...
>
> Look at all of the variations in the udev tarball between the different
> vendor configurations (we put them in there for other people to base
> their distro off of, if they want to.)
>
> So providing this config in the kernel will just not work, sorry.

We have standard libraries, header files, system calls, why is a
standard in this case a bad thing? Actually not even a standard,
perhaps, a default. It wouldn't make it one bit harder to have custom
names, for those who believe different is better.

--
-bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
last possible moment - but no longer" -me