|
On Tue, 21 Nov 2000, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> There usually isn't a problem with that. Frankly, I am quite amazed why the
> inclusion of LVS into RH's default kernel has created such a load - it
> shouldn't be the case.
you would hope not, but it would seem that people with problems using LVS
with RH come straight to us. Given that it's happened once, I'd like to
plan for it not to happen the same way when you do it.
> > > Having LVS included will work fine for most people
> >
> > it's the other people that I'm concerned about.
>
> There will always be people who can't get it right. The LVS install file
> should tell people
>
> "Hey, if you are getting an error message like this, or if your
> distribution already includes LVS, don't try applying the patch on top
> of it.
Given that you're going to do what you're going to do, we can do this.
> Do you think this would help?
yes, that should work. We can at least try it.
> Exactly. So there _isn't_ a pressing reason why people who are unable to
> should upgrade.
I guess not. If I'm running some 2.0.36 machines here, I should be able to
handle people who elect to run on ipvs which is one revision back
> > Rather than SuSE easing the lives of its purchasers, I'd rather SuSE
> > first minimised its impact on people developing the software that SuSE uses
> > and who are doing it in their spare time.
>
> We do have to balance both. And I don't see a conflict.
>
> But you are essentially asking for vendors not to include any patch on top of
> the plain kernel, which just will not work.
no I'm not, you can re-read my mail if you want to see what I said.
Joe
--
Joseph Mack mack@xxxxxxxxxxx
|
