On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 04:46:10PM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 12:43 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
* +0.5 for moving uname-r *if* there is strong evidence that it will be
acceptable for all major stakeholders (Fedora, RHEL,
kerneldrivers.org
in particular), -0.5 otherwise
chicken and egg problem?
> While the single items are all factually correct
Strong words. The above summary and the detailed doc contains several
inaccuracies and omissions (eg. about agnosticity, flexibility, buildsys
support, kabi, support(ability) in other distros etc), luckily mostly in
the less important parts. I guess this is due to not understanding all
aspects of the current scheme and the environment it is designed to work
in. I won't spend time detailing those because I don't have time to do
that right now, and even if I had, IMO there are no real reasons to
consider/discuss its adoption besides the uname-r move bit. (Yes, sucky
statement, but shrug, it's the best I can do in the time I have
available for this at the moment.)
Yes, it's quite lame. If you accuse the write-up of inaccuracies/ommisions
you have to go into details. Even defusing that it's not about the
important parts is not enough.
No, really, I don't have time to waste myself, still I deliver for
every statement I make. If you don't people may consider it FUD.
--
Axel.Thimm at
ATrpms.net