From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 7 May 2002 11:03:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 7 May 2002 11:03:17 -0400 Received: from penguin.e-mind.com ([195.223.140.120]:24080 "EHLO penguin.e-mind.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 7 May 2002 11:03:16 -0400 Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 17:03:31 +0200 From: Andrea Arcangeli To: Alan Cox Cc: Andy Carlson , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Tux in main kernel tree? (was khttpd rotten?) Message-ID: <20020507170331.P31998@dualathlon.random> In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22.1i X-GnuPG-Key-URL: http://e-mind.com/~andrea/aa.gnupg.asc X-PGP-Key-URL: http://e-mind.com/~andrea/aa.asc Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 03:42:47PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > Tux has a lot of other things that make it questionable for merging - > incredibly so for 2.4 - it sticks its fingers into task structs, dcache I don't buy that, so you may want to give us an answer for why is it included into the redhat 2.4 kernel if according to you it's incredibly questionable for merging into 2.4? I merged it and it's trivial to merge, all "questionable" patches are obviously safe. If Marcelo accepts my patches, I will be very glad to replace khttpd with tux into mainline 2.4. The two products are completly equivalent and risking to increase the khttpd userbase just because tux isn't in mainline doesn't make any sense to me, it can only waste resources. (despite it makes much more sense to use zope, apache, servlets and php instead of tux for anything real, first of all for security reasons, but that's another issue, here the issue is khttpd vs tux and this one is a no brainer) Andrea