On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 08:19:22PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 07:30:58PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote: > > I am hereby asking the tech-ctte to decide how the kernel ABI should > > be managed. > > Hi Julien, from the bug log it's pretty clear that there was no > possibilities of agreement between you and the kernel team, so thanks > for bringing this issue to tech-ctte. > > I've a question for the kernel team, which might help some investigation > of the tech-ctte. There seem to be two intertwined issue here: > > 1) the general policy of kernel ABI maintenance
we try to avoid ABI bumps at our best. especially in times of release the ABI is kind of frozen due to d-i requirements. There is no way so shortly before the release we would bump ABI. upstream has no ABI rule best read in Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt thus stable updates to indeed change ABI. > 2) the specific smp_ops issue > > You asked ruling about (1), on which there is a clear divergence of > opinions between you (as bug reporter / user) and the kernel team (as > package maintainers). Of course ruling about (1) will also address (2), > one way or the other. > > Still, (2) is more urgent, as (I agree on that) it will impact upgrade > experience of Debian users like Julien, who are forced to use VMWare. No > matter who is at fault, the choice about (2) will have an impact on a > specific class of users. The submitter shows a clear confusion between the requirements of a shared lib userspace and the linux-2.6 kernel. Furthermore it is indeed quite unclear if said company is not effectively violating GPL and several core dev do indeed think so. -- maks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101219233806.ga20...@vostochny.stro.at
