Hi Dominik.
> Sorry for spoiling a party, but it does NOT even compile (up to
> 2.2.15pre7)...
I can't speak for the pre-release kernels like the one you quote
above, other than to point out that kernels with "pre" in their name
are not usually regarded as being the most stable ones.
> I DO know that hfmodem is not the most used part of the kernel.
> I DO know that it'd probably compile with kgcc-2.7.2.3 (although
> breaking in some other part), but it's to illustrate that NO
> vanilla 2.2.xx kernel is compileable outta the box...
If you wish to declare that a kernel compiled with a specific driver
failing to compile means that the kernel never compiles, you are of
course free to do so.
However, there are KNOWN changes to various kernel subsystems that
broke MANY of the drivers. Memory says one such change occurred around
2.2.7 or 2.2.8 - I don't have the precice details to hand - and that
as a result of that several of the drivers were DELIBERATELY left
broken as there was nobody around with the relevant hardware to verify
any proposed fixes. As people with the relevant hardware have fixed
their drivers, the fixes have been merged into the kernel.
The position taken was that it is better to have the drivers in
question refuse to compile than to have them compile and fail to work.
I personally agree with that decision.
> People !!! It's already 15th release candidate (less for all
> that pre's and ac's) and it does NOT even compile... "Use
> kgcc-2.7.2.3" is NOT to be taken as a valid excuse, it's simply
> broken... There have been patches addressing wrong assembly in
> 2.2.xx in l-k but nobody cared to merge them.
More likely, nobody submitted them for merging - and certainly, I've
not seen any on L-K that weren't applied.
> Anyone else for a "stable" kernel ?
Probably anybody for whom all the relevant drivers have been fixed.
> Someone to call the configuration with hfmodem exotic ?
If it happens to be one that nobody's got round to fixing, then yes,
it must be exotic, otherwise somebody would have fixed it.
> As I do recall, someone here did say that he does compile all
> 2.2.xx kernels with all imaginable config combination with 100%
> success rate...
Not that I've seen. Someone stated that he compiles the kernels with
all options that are supposed to work set to "Y", and somebody else
stated that they do the equivalent modular compile, but I've seen
nobody state that they try all possible combinations for every kernel.
> I do not even try to mention the parts which are not SMP-safe...
What does that have to do with your argument anyway?
Best wishes from Riley.
* Copyright (C) 1999, Memory Alpha Systems.
* All rights and wrongs reserved.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| There is something frustrating about the quality and speed of Linux |
| development, ie., the quality is too high and the speed is too high, |
| in other words, I can implement this XXXX feature, but I bet someone |
| else has already done so and is just about to release their patch. |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
* http://www.memalpha.cx/Linux/Kernel/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 15 2000 - 21:00:27 EST