| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:11:49 +0100 From: Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk> To: Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Please release a stable kernel Linux 3.0 On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 04:53:58PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote: > 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. Modules do not have any rights; it's software, for fsck sake... > You are effectively inhibiting the development of an out-of-tree GPL module > pool, by constantly pulling the rug under that community. The same thing happens with any yet-to-be-merged code. > Do you think this is fair? Yes, it is fair. Decision to maintain your code out of tree indefinitely is your decision. - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists