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

Re: [fab] Alternative kernels?



On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 01:01 +0530, Rahul wrote:
> > 
> > If we allow arbitrary kernels that are maintained in Extras, how do we
> > make sure that there's actually a consistent set of features provided?
> 
> We dont need to allow arbitrary kernels. Can we allow Planet CCRMA 
> kernel or the OLPC kernel?

Can we leave OLPC out of this for now?  Yay for OLPC, but only a few
people have hardware that it could actually be used on.  Planet CCRMA is
a much more realistic case.

> > And that's ignoring the questions of currency and handling of security
> > errata, which is already hard enough.
> 
> Yes. A good maintainer would be required. Fortunately, in both these 
> case we have one. RT patch set is being pushed very heavily upstream by 
> Ingo and is expected to take a few revisions.

Does Ingo want to maintain a kernel _package_ though?

josh


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