[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: kernels in the packaging universe

Dave Jones wrote:
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 02:06:39PM -0500, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote:

> To the best of my knowledge, the problem you have with kmods/alternate > kernels is that people complain when they break, and they fill bugzilla > with bugs that don't make sense -- because people don't understand that > they're running funky kernels. > > Right? Are there any other reasons not to package these alternate > kernels? > > Because that's a valid reason. But it also gives us something to shoot > for: better reporting tools.

The bugzilla issue is the #1 reason.
I don't want to do another round-trip in bugzilla where I have to ask..

"Now try and repeat this issue without kmod-blah loaded".

Personally, I consider this more of a bug triaging failure. kernel bugs should only be accepted/allowed *only* if from verifiably taint-free kernels. Everything else -> closed/INVALID.

-- Rex

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]