On Tue, Apr 24, at 07:27 Matthew Burgess wrote: > On Tuesday 24 April 2007 08:27, Randy McMurchy wrote: > > Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 04/24/07 02:11 CST: > > > Then -1 to Matt's proposal to remove the patch. Seems dumb to remove > > > a patch that provides a better end product. > > > > In my haste in replying I didn't think through this response, please: > > > > s/Seems dumb to/I would prefer that we didn't/ > > Oh, ever the diplomat Randy :-) > > The reasons I wanted to drop the patch were in my original RFC, the main one > being that it's never going to get accepted upstream as the functionality to > determine the processor type belongs in the kernel. Thinking over that again > though, that's exactly the same situation faced by the Coreutils i18n patch - > it provides useful functionality but in a manner that upstream won't accept. > So, maybe it wasn't a very strong argument after all. > > Given the above, and the fact that those that responded want the patch kept, > I'll just let it lie for now. >
How about a compromise. In fact as more I am thinking about it, it's the right thing to do. How about a note in the Coreutils page? Where, we will mention the behavior of the unpatched uname, as it get reported by Greg, and then we will simple say that the dev-team decided to apply the patch, because of the xi-psi (as we say in my neighborhood) reasons. And we will simple mention the reasons. I would go even further and maybe submitted a good report/bug to both kernel/Coreutils teams. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
