On Sunday 06 April 2003 18:05, Brian J. Murrell wrote: > I agree that it should be the stock kernel + multimedia needs (ONLY!). > I don't want it to be a "hackkernel" either.
Maybe there should be a "kernel-hack" in contrib. There are probably people who are using (or would use, if they knew about it) -mm who aren't doing any multimedia, just because they want some of these patches (like supermount). That's fine, but those people shouldn't be arguing for patches to go into the next version of -mm. And if they had a separate -hack kernel where they could get the patches they wanted, they wouldn't be. If, as Austin Acton suggests, you broaden the definition of "multimedia" to mean something like "pure desktop computing," that still leaves out plenty of patches that have nowhere else to go, and the broader definition will only make people more likely to try to get them crammed into -mm. The obvious question is, who is the hack kernel for? Nobody's going to want to turn on every patch in the world, right? Well, I know quite a few people who configure and rebuild kernels all the time but never patch them. (With FreeBSD, even beginners are expected to configure and rebuild their kernel, but only experts are supposed to patch it....)
