> 'Standard Linux'
> Should the core kernel define a standard Linux??
To an extent.
I will tell you the rules I try to follow for 2.2.x
o Never add an ABI that is not standardised in 2.3.x by Linus
o If drivers/ioctl interfaces are added to 2.2 first I try to be very
fussy about them because an ABI is hardest to fix
> And what does the community think of distros that veer from the standard?
> Should the 'standard' be set in stone?
I certainly don't want it set in stone. All of a sudden I then become some kind
of multi-vendor approval service. That is wrong.
> ie should we say that ALL distros have to ship with, and be compatible with the
> standard kernel? If a distro has a patch that they want in the kernel, and the
Compatible with yes, but without additional features - I think thats bad. The
Linux Standard Base project is about defining a standard 'Linux' - which might
btw equally be a fully compliant Linux emulation on FreeBSD for all it matters
to application vendors.
> (Side Note: had one of my sysadmins that needed to install a server with a DAC960
>Raid
> controller.. The standard Linux kernel had no support for it so he had a choice.
Im confused there. Leonard has been submitted DAC960 patches to the standard
kernel first since 1.2. or so.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
