Re: kernel with supermount
On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 10:19:53AM +0100, Massimo Dal Zotto wrote:
> > > Previously Joseph Carter wrote:
> > >> However, I must agree that more or less every major distribution except us
> > >> supplies a rather heavily patched kernel. In truth, the reason not to
> > FWIW, my policy is to minimise the amount of new features, while including
> > any bug fixes which are necessary. Oh, and CVS (which I use for all my
> > packages) has no problems dealing with a large amount of patches.
> Back to the original question: why not supermount in Debian kernels?
I would like to add my 2c to the opinion that it's better to keep the kernel
as patch-less as possible. Users can patch their own kernels (at their own
risk) and build new kernel packages if they want to. As soon as you add
supermount, then people will begin asking for e.g. lm_sensors, and so on and
so on. Before you know it, you have a potentially very unstable kernel
package and the poor debian maintainer has to spend his days handling
problems that should be handled by the patch maintainers themselves.
The age-old principle of KISS should be applied here.
charl p. botha | computer graphics and cad/cam
http://cpbotha.net/ | http://www.cg.its.tudelft.nl/