Re: ABI handling for linux-2.6
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 11:37:38PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
> 4) To send a mail to the US gov. due to crypto export regulations.
Sorry, but there is nothing in this that needs human intervention in the NEW
queue handling, you could do this just as well in an automated way, and it
probably happens in an automated way already.
> > 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.
>
> An abi change in the kernel is exactly the same as an abi change in
> say mozilla. When the abi changes all modules/plugins have to be
> recompiled. Same thing.
Sure, and i believe that in the same way that in the kernel case, the mozilla
handling of the subset of packages involved could be delegated to the mozilla
team.
The problem is that we have a centralized situation where a few busy people
are in charge, and their not doing it in a timely fashion may block lot of
other uninvolved persons.
The debian way of handling this kind of issues has always been to use a
distributed method, and no strong central control.
If a team is responsible over a given set of packages, it should have the
final word on it, and not be treated like some group of idiot who have to be
controlled and cannot be thrusted.
> > 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.
>
> Be aware that "it has always been done that way" comes along with "the
> infrastructure does it that way" and "who will write the patch for
> this". Three very strong arguments that will nock you out. :)
The real problem here is that the argument is of not of the kind of "who will
write the patch", but of the "even if there is a patch, will it be applied, or
thrown in the trashcan because the ftp-master disaprove of it". People are
very very warry of spending time that it is known before hand that it will
never be applied.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: