On 05/30/2014 02:51 AM, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 04:41:01AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
>2014-05-30 4:32 GMT+02:00 Michael Biebl<mbi...@gmail.com>:
> >2014-05-30 4:26 GMT+02:00 Greg KH<gre...@linuxfoundation.org>:
> >
> >>You update systemd but you don't update the kernel? How does that make
> >>any sense?
> >
> >There might be very valid reasons why you need to stick with the old
> >kernel. As said, one example could be that the new one simply doesn't
> >boot. Requiring lock-step upgrades makes the system less
> >fault-tolerant.
> >So where possible this should be avoided.
>
>What I'm trying to say here is: let's rip this code out once all
>stable distros out there in the wild ship a kernel with builti-in
>firmware loader support, but please not before.
What is "all"?
Do we really have to wait 10+ years just because some random disto
doesn't want to update their kernel?
Since when does systemd care about what random distros do?
Agreed.
Upstream should always be the driving force forwards thus carrying the
most modern code as well as being the decisive factor when it's time to
obsolete things from their code base and the burden be put on downstream
to carry and maintaining the legacy code being removed if for whatever
reason they still require the functionality it provided, be it the udev
firmware loader or legacy compatibility mode or generators etc.
JBG
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
