Re: Bug#345067: My understanding of the IDE mess, and why it does not make sense to apply the proposed patch

To: debian-kernel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#345067: My understanding of the IDE mess, and why it does not make sense to apply the proposed patch
From: Anthony DeRobertis <aderobertis@metrics.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 10:28:57 -0500
Message-id: <3841324.hRs9Qpt2Dd@tao.metrics.net>
References: <20060307095358.GA20724@localhost.localdomain> <20060308223106.c46f391d.dr@jones.dk> <20060308230800.GA22116@localhost.localdomain> <Pine.LNX.4.63.0603082219130.3583@bobcat> <20060309093523.GC18323@tennyson.dodds.net> <Pine.LNX.4.63.0603092329480.4293@bobcat> <20060310081242.GA14595@localhost.localdomain> <3932631.zb4MBsc3O8@tao.metrics.net> <20060313072812.GA8733@localhost.localdomain> <20060313111344.1b9f7824.dr@jones.dk>

Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

> I believe it is important for yaird to apply same strict logic to all
> Linux kernels, official or not.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I think the following has been discovered:

1. The ide-generic requirement was added by the modular IDE patch, which
Debian included in its kernels. (Thus, kernel.org kernels never had it)

2. The ide-generic requirement is gone as of 2.6.15.

I suspect a resolution that satisfies everyone is possible given the
above two items.

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Bug#345067: My understanding of the IDE mess, and why it does not make sense to apply the proposed patch
  - From: Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk>

References:
- Escalating #345067 to the technical comittee, as the maintainer asked me to do so, and is unable or unwilling to do his job without this.
  - From: Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
- My understanding of the IDE mess, and why it does not make sense to apply the proposed patch
  - From: Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk>
- Re: My understanding of the IDE mess, and why it does not make sense to apply the proposed patch
  - From: Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
- Re: My understanding of the IDE mess, and why it does not make sense to apply the proposed patch
  - From: Jurij Smakov <jurij@wooyd.org>
- Re: Bug#345067: My understanding of the IDE mess, and why it does not make sense to apply the proposed patch
  - From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>
- Re: Bug#345067: My understanding of the IDE mess, and why it does not make sense to apply the proposed patch
  - From: Jurij Smakov <jurij@wooyd.org>
- Re: Bug#345067: My understanding of the IDE mess, and why it does not make sense to apply the proposed patch
  - From: Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
- Re: Bug#345067: My understanding of the IDE mess, and why it does not make sense to apply the proposed patch
  - From: Anthony DeRobertis <aderobertis@metrics.net>
- Re: Bug#345067: My understanding of the IDE mess, and why it does not make sense to apply the proposed patch
  - From: Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
- Re: Bug#345067: My understanding of the IDE mess, and why it does not make sense to apply the proposed patch
  - From: Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk>

Prev by Date: Re: Bug#345067: My understanding of the IDE mess, and why it does not make sense to apply the proposed patch
Next by Date: Bug#355204: sorry - duplicate
Previous by thread: Re: Bug#345067: My understanding of the IDE mess, and why it does not make sense to apply the proposed patch
Next by thread: Re: Bug#345067: My understanding of the IDE mess, and why it does not make sense to apply the proposed patch
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread