Jeff Mahoney wrote:
On 02/09/2011 12:31 PM, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
What do you feel would benifit by keeping this separate?
You mean who? Me when trying to get a fix for a lirc driver out to the users that don't tumble on weed for example :-) Previously I could just cherry pick fixes from lirc cvs myself, put them into the lirc package and request an update. Now the drivers are in the kernel and I certainly don't want to get involved maintaining patches there.
I'm not sure why you think this is an issue.
Wouldn't http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=history;f... essentially do the same thing?
Patches would still need to be included in the huge kernel package with all it's special magic and processes though.
How would the work flow happen? How would other distros and users be able to sync up properly?
Just like it works with distributions or bigger user space projects that consist of several components. How do GNOME or KDE manage to create working (*cough*) releases? :-)
.. and there's pretty high overhead involved with that. In-kernel drivers have the maintenance benefit that if an API is changed, the changer has to fix all the call sites as well.
The individual components could still be considered in-kernel. So the policy would apply there as well. cu Ludwig -- (o_ Ludwig Nussel //\ V_/_ http://www.suse.de/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org