Re: The Kernel

[George Bonser <grep@oriole.sbay.org>]

On Tue, 20 Jan 1998, Rick Jones wrote:

> He's talking about the *SEUL* kernel not the *Linux core* kernel.  He's
> talking about doing what every other dist does.  He's also saying that
> SEUL should be more careful in putting out a top quality kernel as
> opposed to some dists that might just throw it in without testing beyond
> insuring it boots.

Exactly.  We must be clear about the division between core and seul.  As a
matter of fact, core is simply a collection of sources.  The more I think
about it, the more I think that core sould NOT be debian packages because
that enforces a certain filesystem layout and I think we might want to
give the various distributions the freedom to put things where they will.

This is a good issue for later discussion.
 
> I was under the impression that the kernel patches came from kernel
> developers to begin with, for the most part, and will end up in the
> kernel source anyway.  So what's the problem, as long as *Linux core*
> remains standard?

That was my thinking.  I suppose we could put a lurk on the kernel-devel
mailing list and if a patch is rejected for good reason (it breaks xyz) we
do not incorporate it.  If it seems to be generally adopted into most of
the kernel weenies' source trees and things go well, we can incorporate
and test it ourselves.



George Bonser 
If NT is the answer, you didn't understand the question. (NOTE: Stolen sig)
http://www.debian.org
Debian/GNU Linux ... the maintainable operating system.