On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 02:18:01PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > And neglecting to remove plenty of other firmware. > Examples are welcome. I gave one below.. > > And not just in the kernel either. > Then it's out of scope for this project. Which was ignored. If you have this kind of selective 'vision', then I really don't see what the point of tihs exercise is at all. > > The x86 microcode updater is a pretty essential thing to have run > > during bootup. Some early Pentium III's locked up when running 2.6 > > kernels under load unless they had an update applied. > > And people don't take it up to Intel that they shipped a defective > product? I challenge you to find a single microprocessor that has ever shipped without errata. > > Removing this package will make you more "free" at the expense > > of breaking some percentage of the userbase. > > This "well my system is ok, screw everyone else" approach is what I find > > so fundamentally broken in this idea. > > You misunderstand the idea. > > Everyone who's talking about removing stuff from Fedora misunderstood > the suggestion. > > I'm talking about adding a new package, that's all. The original > package will be unchanged. > > I'm not asking you to change your procedures. > > I'm not asking you to help me maintain it. > > I'm not asking you to stop doing what you're doing. > > > Especially as the people advocating for this aren't those who get to > > deal with the fallout when users start filing bugs. > > What part of separate package maintained by myself did you not > understand? > > Or are you volunteering to take over these efforts? :-) Are you volunteering to prefilter all the incoming kernel bugs to triage the bugs affected by your alternative ? Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
