linux-kernel - Re: Please release a stable kernel Linux 3.0

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:53:58 +0300
From:	Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Please release a stable kernel Linux 3.0

Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:18:36AM +0200, Zolt?n HUBERT wrote:
> > And as I understand it, this is (was ?) the whole point of
> > stable/development kernels. "We" can trust a newer stable
> > kernel to be a drop-in replacement for an older stable
> > kernel (from the same series), while development kernels
> > need time to stabilise with the new whizz-bang-pfouit stuff
> > that you all so nicely add.
>
> "Drop-in" in which sense?  That out-of-tree modules keep working?
> Not really...

Al, be reasonable.  There are many out-of-tree GPL modules that won't be 
accepted into mainline, never mind those that shouldn't be accepted.  But 
these modules do have a right to not be obsoleted by constant API changes.

You are effectively inhibiting the development of an out-of-tree GPL module 
pool, by constantly pulling the rug under that community.

Do you think this is fair?


Thanks!

--
Al

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/