|
From: Dirk M. <dm...@gm...> - 2003-11-14 15:51:48
|
On Friday 14 November 2003 16:23, Daniel Veillard wrote: > > That depends on if any of the developers is actually adventurous enough > > to use Redhat and port it to their outdated, incompatible and horribly > > buggy copy of what will eventually become NPTL in the future. > Let's say that this an extremely biased answer. NPTL was developped > by Red Hat, maybe this infuriates you (no idea why), maybe you hope > to have things changed (that may be reasonable), but such vitriolic > jugement is poor communication at best, So you say that a) the version of NPTL in Redhat 9 is still current with the development tree b) the version of NPTL in Redhat 9 is fully binary and behaviour compatible with the stuff that went into kernel 2.6 c) the version of NPTL in Redhat 9 is without bugs ? Lets just say that this was an extremely biased answer. About the "no idea why": I don't think this belongs on a public mailing list, but since you started dragging it into it, I've to give it an answer: I find it unacceptable to do such a massive ABI change in a "vendor" kernel that is labeled as "linux 2.4". Its not anything near linux 2.4 what you ship. Instead you expect that every 3rd party developer will be happy and full of joy that you again managed to release a distro that is in core parts completely incompatible to any (!) other distro out there. That alone wouldn't be too bad (you could claim that you're technically ahead of other distributions), but the fact is that its not even compatible to what went into vanilla kernel makes it a bad decision. But after redhat-gcc and redhat-glibc it was just a matter of time until there would be a redhat-kernel. But anyway, maybe you can raise the communication level by explaining how we can support NPTL in a compatible way. I don't see any, but maybe you know more than me. Dirk |