Re: To what extent should Debian modify the kernel? (Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!)
David Z Maze <dmaze@debian.org> wrote:
>
> ...do you include *everything* that comes by you that meets these
> criteria? Because from this it sounds like anything that has an
> upstream that can be built as modules would be included. My
> particular directed thought right now is a somewhat invasive patch
> that updates the 2.4 kernels to use i2c-2.8, which would solve some
> headaches for me ("somewhat invasive", in that it also goes off and
> modifies all of the other drivers that depend on i2c); if I were the
> kernel maintainer, it'd trip a "too different from kernel.org" flag
> for me, but it sounds like it does meet your four criteria here.
I'm afraid your patch fails the maintainence and the correctness checks.
It fails the maintainence because your upstream has had a bad track
record at getting patches merged, so there is a strong likelihood that
we'll have to pick up the pieces at some future point in time.
It fails the correctness check because it'll probably break the in-kernel
users of i2c.
The maintainence check is tougher than you think. For any patch of a
respectable size, unless it is clearly going to be merged into Linux
proper then it is likely to fail that check.
Cheers,
--
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Reply to: