[arch-dev-public] Kernel - vanilla vs patched?

Aaron Griffin aaronmgriffin at gmail.com
Fri Nov 9 12:11:45 EST 2007

On Nov 9, 2007 11:05 AM, Tobias Powalowski <t.powa at gmx.de> wrote:
> Kernel maintaining is not easy (as probably those who done it know) , the main
> effort of the kernel is to satisfy the needs of the users/developers hardware
> and features.
> it's not about vanilla and or not vanilla it *HAS TO WORK* and must be
> maintainable in a reasonable amount of time, thats the  real thing of a
> kernel.
> If something breaks it must be fixed or removed, plain simple.
> (my opinion)

Ugh. Man. I don't know how to say this any different that the last 40
times I said this: we're not talking about bug fixes. Bug fixes are
fine and expected. We're talking about miscellaneous feature requests

> A maintainer of a package, who does the real work on it, reads bugreports,
> looks for fixes, tries to get a better package than others and tries to add
> userfriendlieness seems to not fit to the arch philosophy anymore, should
> probably do something else.
> If you say it must be plain vanilla as kernel.org is, go ahead do it,
> but without me.

Are you saying that you do not wish to maintain the kernel? That's
fine - no one is forcing your hand, and I'd be willing to do it in
your stead.

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list