On Thursday 11 November 2010 23:34, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> Meanwhile, it seems from the discussion that a few BusyBox/uClibc
> developers are mildly in favor of this idea,
Those developers who aren't users don't know what is going on
in the trenches.
(Quite often, then don't realize this, and w
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 04:01:08PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Thursday 11 November 2010 09:07:31 Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 04:04:06PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> > > Look: Linux has to deal with binary only modules, which the developers
> > > hate. To compensate for this, th
Thanks to all of you for this discussion. To be clear, I raised this
issue only as a point of discussion for the community. I didn't intend
to demand that a specific recommendation of any kind be followed.
Rather, I was sharing some thoughts that came to my mind when I saw Tim
Bird's "flag" sugge
On Thursday 11 November 2010 09:07:31 Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 04:04:06PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> > Look: Linux has to deal with binary only modules, which the developers
> > hate. To compensate for this, they go out of their way to avoid having a
> > stable internal API (whi
On Thursday 11 November 2010 09:51:34 Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Hi, Rob,
>
> > Look: Linux has to deal with binary only modules, which the developers
> > hate. To compensate for this, they go out of their way to avoid having a
> > stable internal API (which could argualy be used as a copyright barri
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 04:04:06PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> Look: Linux has to deal with binary only modules, which the developers hate.
> To compensate for this, they go out of their way to avoid having a stable
> internal API (which could argualy be used as a copyright barrier and thus
>
No, they shouldn't.
On Friday 05 November 2010 11:33:36 Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> LWN.net wrote at 18:30 (EDT) on Thursday:
> > As a result of discussions held at two recent embedded Linux summits
> > (and reported back to the recent Kernel Summit), the [Linux] community
> > has decided to identif
> "Will" == Will Newton writes:
Hi,
Will> I'm not sure that there's quite the same need for flag versions.
Will> Upgrading a kernel can cause lots of subtle changes in how the
Will> system behaves and incur a lot of effort in updating out of tree
Will> drivers, whereas swapping a new Bus
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> LWN.net wrote at 18:30 (EDT) on Thursday:
>> As a result of discussions held at two recent embedded Linux summits
>> (and reported back to the recent Kernel Summit), the [Linux] community
>> has decided to identify specific kernel versions
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> LWN.net wrote at 18:30 (EDT) on Thursday:
>> As a result of discussions held at two recent embedded Linux summits
>> (and reported back to the recent Kernel Summit), the [Linux] community
>> has decided to identify specific kernel versions
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> LWN.net wrote at 18:30 (EDT) on Thursday:
>> As a result of discussions held at two recent embedded Linux summits
>> (and reported back to the recent Kernel Summit), the [Linux] community
>> has decided to identify specific kernel versions
LWN.net wrote at 18:30 (EDT) on Thursday:
> As a result of discussions held at two recent embedded Linux summits
> (and reported back to the recent Kernel Summit), the [Linux] community
> has decided to identify specific kernel versions as "flag versions" to
> try to reduce "version fragmentation"
12 matches
Mail list logo
