Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So, I'm curious why you chose to make it a part of the Debian kernel source, > rather than a separate patch (kernel-patch-ipsec or such).
Well the reason for it to be in the default kernel-source is simple: The patch should be used on all default Debian kernel images unless the arch maintainer chooses to override it. > I suppose the more fundamental question is, what is your vision for the > Debian kernel source? What do you feel belongs there, and what does not? Perhaps vision is too strong a word. I have some simple checks when it comes to patch inclusion: * Is it actively maintained by someone? If it's not maintained then there is very little chance for me to include it as I have no time in fixing random breakages. * If it's a feature, can it be disabled/enabled at runtime? Sinec we're making generic kernels, this is a must. The presence of the patch should not prevent me from doing something that I would otherwise be able to do. If the patch only produces a module then it obviously passes this test. * If it's a bug fix, how bad are its side-effects? I'm not going to accept any bug fix that makes the kernel better for 10% of the users but worse for the other 90%. * What size impact does it have to the binary kernel image? This is very important for the debian-boot team. Again it would be best if it was completely modularised. Cheers, -- Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ ) Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
