Bug#404143: Fans unreliable under load, permanent memory leak
On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 11:50:40AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Sven Luther (sven.luther@wanadoo.fr) [061222 05:42]:
> > On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 12:53:09PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> > > maximilian attems <maks@sternwelten.at> writes:
> > > > On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 11:28:29AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> > > >> Fix it or document it, I don't care. But the current state is not
> > > >> releasable.
> > > > we are not talking about "a" patch.
> > > > what you need is an backport of the 2.6.19 acpi release to 2.6.18.
> > >
> > > Read again what I wrote. I will not allow Debian to release with a
> > > Kernel that may damage hardware without even a notice in the release
> > > notes. If you are not able to fix it, note that you have provided a
> > > broken kernel.
> >
> > Cool, let's delay etch a couple of weeks and move to a (now released) 2.6.19
> > kernel, to solve this issue.
>
> Sven, stop this!
Why ? /me guesses that even though debian is about free software, there are
many who feel that freedom of speach is to be banned. Do you also follow that
line of thought ? Was it not enough that some people felt that i should be
burned on the stack for having send mails while i was not at my best ?
Really, this kind of behavior is disgusting.
> I can remember well how you promised that moving to
> 2.6.18 will magically solve almost all of our issues - 6 (or more)
> release critical bugs against 2.6.18 don't show that this has worked so
> well. Please try helping us on solutions rather then breaking things
> again.
I did not promise anything such. I simply stated at that time, that there
where many RC issues which where already fixed in the 2.6.18 tree, and which
would be a pain to backport to the 2.6.17 tree. Quite a different thing, don't
you think ?
I personally will need to maintain 2.6.19+ backports to etch, because there is
no sane way to get Efika support in 2.6.18 without lot of work.
> Please try to look at it from another perspective:
>
> Consider you have bought such a laptop, and you install Debian. You have
> even read the release notes first. Everything works well. Until one
> day you notice your laptop gets too warm, and eventually even breaks
> because of this. On deeper research, you notice that this issue was
> well-known to Debian, but they refused to deal with it at all. How would
> you feel as a user? I think this is an unacceptable perspective.
Bah. hardware which can be broken by software is broken. That said, if in fact
this is not a bug of the bios as was first mentioned here, but that the linux
support is not able to cope with some not usual but legal features of acpi,
then it is another matter.
But you should *NEVER* try to stop discussion about the subject, or bash on
someone for writing a single sentence as i did.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: