-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 08:05:02PM +0200, Andreas Henriksson wrote: >On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 06:51:58PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >> I disagree - it does no harm to provide this patch package for the >> little minority willing to use older kernels. >> > >Ok, I was more thinking from the other perspective. If the user is >willing to download old unsupported kernels from someone else then >Debian, then they are probably willing to download the wrr patch from >the official homepage as well.
I prefer official Debian-compiled kernels to locally compiled ones. But when I need features unavailable in official Debian kernels, I prefer automating the process as much as possible to avoid stupid thinkos - and Debian-packaged patches help here. >The harm in shipping it in debian is the waste of time any user, who we >have fooled into thinking it's better to use official debian packages >then downloading random crap of the internet, will have to endure when >they find out that the package doesn't include the patches that >upstream ships and have no mention of it not working on the kernel(s) >shipped in Lenny. I agree that the packaging could be improved. Too late for Lenny, however. >I guess it's pretty obvious where I stand on out-of-tree kernel >patches. :P No, but that very sentence makes me assume that you dislike it. TTBOMK WRR will not be part of the mainline Linux kernel, and mainline kernel does not contain any mechanism comparable with WRR. I would be very happy to learn differently. I would certainly prefer having same features available without the hassle of recompiling with out-of-tree patches like is needed with WRR. So what was your argument again? >If you really want to ship this, I won't argue anymore about it. >Instead I want to take this opportunity to ask if there's anyone out >there that actually uses this, please report if the debian iproute >package works with wrr or if the patch it carries needs to be updated. >There seems to be a "new" patch on the upstream homepage released in >2004 and the discussion from the original patch inclusion in debians >iproute package is from 2003. I have no way to test this, so feedback >from users would be much appreciated. I doubt you will get a lot of responses through bugreports. But I won't stop you from trying. I believe the best indication of Debian package relevance is the Popularity Contest: http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=wrr - Jonas - -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkirJBoACgkQn7DbMsAkQLjmjACdHChjg7PJ/UPnfQ0p2QWQT8LV IGcAoIRUYpPc/moZvZtTsNNMvb5ph9Qs =RYHw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
