Re: Getting rid of sysprof-kmod

2007-12-02 Thread David Zeuthen 

On Sun, 2007-12-02 at 02:10 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 02:04:01AM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> The problem is I really hate adding patches that provide new user interfaces.
> It's easy enough to add it, but it'll be a 'fedora-ism' that doesn't work
> in any other distro, or with an upstream kernel.   And what happens
> if someone starts building more things on top of the sysprof exports?
> 
> It's the same reason patches that add syscalls get vetoed. We don't
> want to be in a situation where it appears we're locking users into
> running our distro/kernel.

What if the sysprof author offered

 a. to maintain the patch in the SRPM (e.g. make sure it works)
 b. to work with upstream to either get it his patch in or migrate
to another interface when available

Would that work? Dave? Søren?

 David


___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list

Re: Getting rid of sysprof-kmod

2007-12-02 Thread Gianluca Sforna 
On Dec 2, 2007 10:33 PM, David Zeuthen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> What if the sysprof author offered
>
>  a. to maintain the patch in the SRPM (e.g. make sure it works)

This looks like an easy target; I can witness the module sources
always worked since the package entered in the repo (around FC5 IIRC).
The few occasional glitches were promptly fixed

>  b. to work with upstream to either get it his patch in or migrate
> to another interface when available

Well, last time I asked, the former was not going to happen and I fear
the latter will be too late for F9...

___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list