Re: ABI handling for linux-2.6
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 06:29:21PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> [2006-06-14 18:25]:
> > The issue are ABI changes, but also introduction of new flavours.
>
> Yeah, just like any package... I don't see why we should get special
> treatment.
Because abi breakage and the subsequent NEW handling cause undue delay in
security updates for example.
But more to the point, what is the reason of NEW handling ?
It is to test :
1) that licencing or crypto or whatever are correctly handled. This is
hardly going to be a problem for the kernel, and currently only affects new
source packages, and it can be circunvented by uploading an anodine NEW
package, and then changing the content on the sly, like Mr schiling has done
for star or smake for example.
2) that there is no undue multiplication of new binary packages. Well, this
asks the question of responsability, and of who is in the end responsible to
make the decision. If we want to add a new flavour, is it our right as the
kernel team to do so, or do the ftp-masters need to take the decision, and
if this is the case, are they knowledgeable enough to take the right
decision ?
3) as protection of library-abi changes, in order to not to hose large
amounts of packages and cause a mess.
My claim is that none of these reasons apply to the kernel package, since we
are hardly introducing new source code, and the licence is not going to change
from a day to the next, and we as the kernel team have been even more involved
in licence issues than the ftp-master, as the non-free firmware problem has
showed. Furthermore, the abi-changes is not akin of the library ones, and we
are working in order to control the whole involved subset of packages in one
way or another. The only claim would be 2), where the ftp-master team could
decide to control the introduction of new flavours, but this has never been
done, and i do believe that in the current situation the kernel team has the
last word on this.
On the other hand, the only reason to keep NEW for linux-2.6, is because aj
decided so and refused to even discuss it, and because it has always been done
like this.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: