Re: Problems with kernel updates needing non-kernel changes

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 14:21 -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> Jon Masters wrote:
> > 
> > Indeed. And options that are removed *must* be supported for a while. We
> > can't have modules that loaded previously now failing just because the
> > maintainer decided to remove a previously valid option without warning.
> > This needs strong upstream coercion on the part of those taking patches.
> 
> We can always put the option back in the module just to make it load,
> but I really don't want to be doing that all the time. Maybe I could
> write patches that put the options back and just make them print a
> warning saying the option is no longer valid, then send them upstream.
> Maybe after a few iterations of that people will get the point?

That's what I was thinking...I just didn't want to think too loudly in
case you said "Hey Jon, wanna help?" :P

Jon.



[Index of Archives]     [Fedora General Discussion]     [Older Fedora Users Archive]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Mentors]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Coolkey]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [USB]     [Asterisk PBX]

  Powered by Linux