<200804201523.38644.erwin.vandevelde@gmail.com> <200804210019.01554.dreamteam69@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3aa8b0cfdfae24eaddd723301a7e40ba@localhost> X-Sender: pyther@pyther.net Received: from adsl-75-33-46-5.dsl.bcvloh.sbcglobal.net [75.33.46.5] with HTTP/1.1 (POST); Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:48:12 -0400 User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 00:19:01 +0200, Dream Team <dreamteam69@gmail.com> wrote:
Le Sunday 20 April 2008 15:23:38 Erwin Van de Velde, vous avez écrit :
On Saturday 19 April 2008, Thomas Bächler wrote:
- Removed mactel patch
The removal of these patches was because a) there are no new patches
available for 2.6.25 and b) I am trying to reduce the amount of
patching, especially if it only benefits a few people or can be
potentially dangerous.
As far as I know, the mactel patch is required for some hardware support
on intel-based mac systems and contains important fixes. This does not
seem
like one patch too many, but an essential one for all users who, like
me,
have mac hardware.
I do understand your wish to reduce the number of patches, but throwing
out
patches required for support of important hardware does not seem the way
to
go to me.
Regards,
Erwin
I also am using arch on my mac, and I find this essential and should not
be
removed if you find 2.6.25 compatible patchs (I am sure that they will
come
out in not so many time)
Arnaud
It is one patch to many... If you want a mactel kernel then you make a package in aur and patch the kernel sources with the mactel patch. We need to keep the kernel as clean as possible. The more patches we add the more problems we have. The only patches that should included are major security patches and/or patches that fix major hardware issues, devices that are already supported by the kernel. Don't like it? Don't use arch, Simple! We need to get back to the Arch Way!