<200804201523.38644.erwin.vandevelde@xxxxxxxxx> <200804210019.01554.dreamteam69@xxxxxxxxx> Message-ID: <3aa8b0cfdfae24eaddd723301a7e40ba@localhost> X-Sender: pyther@xxxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxx> 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!
