| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <m1sl3b4t5k.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 04:09:27 -0700 From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: ciol <ciol13@...il.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [poll] Is the megafreeze development model broken? ciol <ciol13@...il.com> writes: > Hi, I'd like to ask you a few questions: > > * Do you like the way linux distributions integrate the kernel? > > * Wouldn't you prefer they ship with the stable and still maintained 2.6.16.X, > while providing optionally the latest kernel for those who want or just have a > new hardware? > > * Do you think the megafreeze development model [1] and the "I don't trust in > upstream" development model are broken? (And why) I think a megafreeze development model is sane. Finding a collection of software versions that are all known to work together is very interesting, and useful. Making it so you can deliver something that just works to end users is always interesting. The only thing you miss out on are new features like the latest hardware support. I think forking packages just so you can claim they are frozen is a dubious practice. Especially if features are added in those forks. (Yes new hardware support is a feature). Eric - 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