Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 23 Jun 1999 22:11:25 -0400 | From | Arvind Sankar <> | Subject | Re: Why Linux is doomed (was: Re: FENRIS (nwfs) 1.4.2 Source Code Available) |
| |
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 08:11:53PM -0000, leitner@convergence.de wrote: > I don't think it is too much to ask that before you release a kernel, > you try to compile it. If it is a stable kernel, then compile it twice, > once with everything as a module, once with everything linked it. That > should be the bare minimum that just has to be done before you release a > kernel. Should Linus really be unwilling to do that, then he should > just post an URL to a /private/ directory here so someone can grab it > and do both compiles.
I don't get it. Why private? So less people compile it? So less configurations get tested? You would be happy if the kernel just compiled, but didn't work?
> > > > 4. FAT. 2.3.7 does not compile with FAT file system. Excuse me? > > > This is the single most frequently used file system besides ext2, > > > and 2.3.7 does not compile with it? Because of a syntax error?! > > Details? Details are the difference between a rant and something > > helpful, useful, and constructive. > > It does not compile.
Of course it doesn't. What's your point? Everybody who bothers to read linux-kernel knows that it doesn't, and knows why it doesn't. If you want to run a kernel that is on a development branch, that was moreover expressly earmarked `Don't run this unless you're sure you can afford to trash your system', you _do_ have to at least bother to read the mailing list.
> > Also, does it really surprise you that a development kernel in > > general, and one in which *major* changes have been made and well > > publicized, in particular, might have some problems in the areas > > directly involved in the changes. > > Sorry, but if the second most frequently used file system does not > compile, then don't release it. I am not counting the pseudo file > systems proc and pts here, obviously.
You don't get it, do you? This isn't a release. Your complaints about breakages in 2.2.x are perfectly valid. It sucks when something earmarked stable starts corrupting your disk. Something's wrong with 2.2.9-10. And this btw, shows why your model doesn't work very well: none of the `core developers' can reproduce this problem on their hardware.
> > > > Management summary: stuff like this sucks. I am but a programmer with a > > > SMP box that likes to run the latest kernel. And yes, I expect all the > > > kernels to compile out of the box. I don't think that this is too much > > > to ask. > > It is not too much to expect other people to give you something that you > > want, without your incurring even minimal responsibilities? > > Huh? > Please think your answer over. > It is people like me who do the quality assurance for Linux. > People like me who complain. And if there is just _one_ goof like the > FAT problem, there are literally thousands of people who will run into > this problem and be discouraged to upgrade their kernel in the future.
This is a problem with the development model of the kernel. Some people do prefer other styles. I do myself: I'd like read-only access to a CVS tree. But Linus likes this one. End of argument.
-- arvind
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |