http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1187011 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1187011#c6 --- Comment #6 from Lawrence Somerville <l_pat_s@hotmail.com> --- Thank you, Larry Finger, for kindly taking some time to within only hours after my Bugzilla posting here to promptly reply to it. Concerning your phrase ���openSUSE has backported a number of kernel API changes into their kernels,��� I don���t know the details or maybe even understand much of the operational part of that phrase. The term ���backport��� was a term I did not understand. From https://www.webopedia.com/definitions/backport/ on the Internet I could see that at least one definition of backporting is the process of applying a computer-software patch to an older version of software than the software for which the patch was originally intended. But the trouble with this definition here is that, according to you, backporting has been applied to one or more Linux kernels in Leap 15.3, which was only released 11 days ago, so could hardly be considered old software. I assume that the abbreviation API you used would stand for Application Programming Interface. I assume that openSUSE would begin with a version of the Linux kernel from https://kernel.org/ and afterward adapt that kernel version in some ways to an openSUSE ���environment.��� So would you please provide some teaching for me here? That is please provide a definition of backporting which would apply to the changes made in the versions of the Linux kernel which openSUSE would provide. In detail please explain with some real examples appropriate for openSUSE Leap what is considered new and what is considered old software in such ���backporting.��� Please explain why it is even necessary to make any changes to the version of the Linux kernel which https://kernel.org/ would provide to make such a modified kernel version work in an openSUSE software ���environment.��� I have learned that a so-called driver file is needed to provide ���communication��� between an operating system and an item of computer hardware in order to make that piece of hardware function in that operating system. But modifying a Linux kernel so that it will be workable in an openSUSE operating system seems to be more basic than a driver to make a piece of computer hardware work in an operating system in the sense of modifying one piece of computer software to make it work with another piece of computer software. I assume that OBS would stand for openSUSE Build Service with the lower-case ���o��� in openSUSE modified as a capital letter ���O��� in the abbreviation OBS. I guess that at least some of the source computer code in the openSUSE software package entitled kernel-source might be written in the C computer language. And I further guess that the API changes that would be in versions of the Linux kernel supplied by openSUSE would be included in kernel-source. Please provide some examples of such necessary API changes in openSUSE Leap. You may correct any of my mistaken assumptions or guesses here. You might have to consult some openSUSE computer-code writers to obtain answers to some of my questions and/or to correct some of the thinking I express here; and, if so, that process might result in the good outcome of each of us learning some new things and/or to understand some basic things concerning openSUSE computer software. And you might even be successful in having one of the computer-code writers provide some relevant teaching here. I can imagine that a main purpose of a Bugzilla posting could be for an openSUSE user to report problems with openSUSE computer software so that openSUSE computer-code writers can become aware of those problems and hopefully fix them and then afterward for someone, maybe one of the actual computer-code writers, to hopefully eventually report here that the reported computer-software problem will have been fixed. But let���s here have something even beyond those good purposes! That is let���s have some teaching and learning take place here as well! If we would be in the same room having a conversation, I could now say, ���What will you say to that?��� But since we instead are online and communicating in writing I instead write, ���What will you write in response to my proposal that a Bugzilla posting also include some specific teaching and learning relating to, for example, why a computer-software problem exists, how the computer software has been designed to work, how various parts of the computer software are designed to work together, what has to occur to make the computer code work successfully, what the precise software problem was, the process and software diagnostic computer code or codes someone used to specifically locate an error in computer software, what process he used to fix an item of computer software, with these last two processes included in the so-called ���debugging��� process; et cetera?��� I think you have at least begun to write in a general way along some of these lines. But to have more specific information with examples of specifically named items of computer software provided in pedagogical way such that I could understand some details would hopefully be more satisfying for me, even though information provided in that way might raise further questions in my mind. But I think that asking questions and obtaining answers to them is a good way to learn and gain understanding. And besides that, that process could be fun. Do you agree with me? Actually either an openSUSE online ���forum��� or a Bugzilla posting could in principle be a ���vehicle��� by which such teaching and learning could take place. I further think that having begun a discussion in either place, it could be natural to continue it there, except in an openSUSE online ���forum��� posting when it becomes clear that a software problem needs to be reported in a Bugzilla posting so that it can be fixed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.