There is no need for a law requiring a 'standard' kernel in any
distro, and there is no chance people would follow any such rule.
So long as people know their distro kernel is patched and, if they
want to apply some 3rd party patch, we advise them they may want to
obtain and install 'clean' sources from kernel.org. This is the
approach I take in my kernel-config chapters for the Unleashed books,
and it is also the advice given on the RedHat website (or at least it
was last I looked)
Anyone who knows they need and will apply a 3rd party patch likely
knows how to obtain and compile a fresh kernel (or can follow my
chapter ;)
A case in point is the Trelos Win4Linux windows 'emulator'. This is
shipped as a patch against what I call "the cannonical sources" and
fails on some of the more exotic distros. Frankly, I don't think
Trelos should bother shipping 'distro flavours' of their patch, and
instead, distros should ship a diff-set which would incrementally
migrate cannonical sources to match their distro package. That way,
if I want Trelos' software, I get the kernel.org sources, patch them
for Trelos, then selectively add what I want from RedHat or Mandrake
or Debian or whatever. IMHO, this has a far greater chance of success
across a wider range of scenarios.
However it goes, though, it is not our problem, it is entirely up to
the distros to sort this out among themselves and the ISVs.
-- Gary Lawrence Murphy <garym@linux.ca>: office voice/fax: 01 519 4222723 T(!c)Inc Business Innovation through Open Source http://www.teledyn.com M:I-3 - Documenting the Linux kernel: http://kernelbook.sourceforge.net "You don't play what you know; you play what you hear." --- Miles Davis - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 07 2000 - 21:00:07 EST