Re: undeprecate raw driver.

[Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>]

Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> 
>> On May 13 2007 12:32, Dave Jones wrote:
>>
>>> Despite repeated attempts over the last two and half years, this
>>> driver seems somewhat persistant.  Remove its deprecated status as
>>> it has existing users who may not be in a position to migrate their
>>> apps
>> At least keep the "it's obsolete" Kconfig description. We don't want
>> new users/projects to jump on /dev/raw.
> 
> i just *know* this is a mistake, but i'm going to take one more shot
> at distinguishing between deprecated and obsolete.
> 
> as i understand it, the raw driver is *deprecated*.  that is, it's
> still there, it's still supported, people are still using it but its
> use is *seriously* discouraged and everyone should be trying to move
> off of it at their earliest possible convenience.
> 
> that is *not* the same as "obsolete" which should mean that that
> feature is dead, dead, DEAD and *no one* should be using it anymore.
> 
> yes, i realize it sounds like splitting hairs, but it's this malleable
> definition of "deprecated" that's causing all of this trouble in the
> first place -- the fact that the raw driver is currently listed as
> "obsolete" when it is, in fact, only deprecated.
> 
> in short, do *not* remove its "deprecated" status.  rather, remove its
> "obsolete" status and *make* it deprecated.
> 
Correct. Like the weird lady next door who fancies you, it's old, it's 
ugly, but it's not likely to go away any time soon.

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
   "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot