| |||||||||||||
Quality filterQuality filterPosted Jun 26, 2007 19:54 UTC (Tue) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702)In reply to: Quality filter by sbergman27 Parent article: More quotes of the week - scenes from a flame war
Wow, I'm truly amazed that only 20% of my postings to LKML are not in any way related with GPLv3. I've historically been a quiet bystander. Maybe if you extend the search to cover other licensing-related topics you'll get something closer to 100%. The few exceptions would be my occasional patches to firewire, raid and the FR-V port, when problems in them hit me hard enough for me to decide to do something about them. Fortunately I could not only modify the sources, but also use the resulting binary in the computers at my disposal. Yay! :-)
(Log in to post comments)
Quality filter Posted Jun 26, 2007 22:23 UTC (Tue) by viro (subscriber, #7872) [Link] > Fortunately I could not only modify the sources, but also use the> resulting binary in the computers at my disposal. Yay! :-) ... Unfortunately, nobody could reproduce that binary with shipped gcc, simply because FRV gcc support of constraints used in the include/asm-frv/pgtable.h had been kept in hell-knows-which branch in hell-knows-what repository for a long, long time...
Ironic, innit?
Quality filter Posted Jun 26, 2007 22:33 UTC (Tue) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link] What constraints are these? I'm not aware of any FR-V constraints I've added myself that haven't been contributed. Maybe someone else added them and forgot to submit them upstream such that I could approve them? Is that somehow my fault?
Quality filter Posted Jun 26, 2007 23:36 UTC (Tue) by viro (subscriber, #7872) [Link] That would be "U". Compare the date when its use appeared inthe mainline kernel and the date when support went into released gcc. I doubt that it had been your fault; just that mentioning frv in that context was... unfortunate. Seriously, frv situation had been extremely annoying for about a year, e.g. for cross-builds.
|
|||||||||||||