Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:43:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:43:34 -0500 Received: from svr-ganmtc-appserv-mgmt.ncf.coxexpress.com ([24.136.46.5]:5381 "EHLO svr-ganmtc-appserv-mgmt.ncf.coxexpress.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:43:32 -0500 Subject: Re: Ptrace hole / Linux 2.2.25 From: Robert Love To: "Martin J. Bligh" Cc: Martin Mares , Alan Cox , Jeff Garzik , Stephan von Krawczynski , Pavel Machek , szepe@pinerecords.com, arjanv@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <402760000.1048451441@[10.10.2.4]> References: <20030323193457.GA14750@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <200303231938.h2NJcAq14927@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20030323194423.GC14750@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <1048448838.1486.12.camel@phantasy.awol.org> <20030323195606.GA15904@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <1048450211.1486.19.camel@phantasy.awol.org> <402760000.1048451441@[10.10.2.4]> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1048452882.1486.58.camel@phantasy.awol.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.3 Date: 23 Mar 2003 15:54:42 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2679 Lines: 60 On Sun, 2003-03-23 at 15:30, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > I don't agree that's always been true by any means. It may currently > be true, but that's far from a good thing. The current state of divergance > the distros have from mainline 2.4 is IMHO the biggest problem Linux has > today. What part of my statement are you disagreeing with, here? I agree distribution divergence is a big issue. It may be a mostly insolvable one, too. It is partially a result of having a long development cycle. But even if we had a shorter development cycle, different distributions have different priorities. It is a hard problem. > The distros inherently have a conflict of interest getting changes merged > back into mainline ... it's time consuming to do, it provides them no real > benefit (they have to maintain their huge trees anyway), and it actively > damages the "value add" they provide. I do not disagree. Although, I think there is incentive to get work merged. It _does_ reduce maintenance. I think you can see Red Hat merging stuff back. I know my employer encourages everything I do to be done openly and get it merged. Its a huge benefit to maintenance and QA to get stuff merged. > If that's people's attitude ("you should use a vendor"), then we need a > 2.4-fixed tree to be run by somebody with an interest in providing > critical bugfixes to the community with no distro ties. People may be > perfectly capable of finding, applying, and collecting their own patches, > but that's no reason to make it difficult. No where above did I say "you should use a vendor" In fact, what I did say is "I think users can and should compile their own kernel if they want. And as kernel developers, we should facilitate that." I merely suggest that users should not expect anything if they go it there own. They need to follow the lists and be informed. Its like me assuming I can maintain my car without a mechanic and then freaking out when I did not hear about a service defect. Actually, a better analogy may include me knowing nothing about cars, too :) Marcelo is in a tough spot. I think Arjan's email (just sent) sums it up well. It is not so clear cut. Personally, I think the ext3 bugs in 2.4.20 are worse than this local ptrace problem (there are other local issues, too). I also think some people are skeptical over the correctness of this patch. Anyhow, what exactly are we arguing over? Robert Love - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/