| |||||||||||||
Long-term support initiative 3.4 kernel releasedLong-term support initiative 3.4 kernel releasedPosted Jan 22, 2013 19:39 UTC (Tue) by butlerm (subscriber, #13312)Parent article: Long-term support initiative 3.4 kernel released
So is there a good reason why the mainstream kernel hasn't accepted such a broadly useful feature as AF_BUS yet? Or something similar, like multicast Unix socket capability?
Reading the article, the objections seem to amount to little more than stubborness. I am in charge so you can't have this feature, no matter how useful it is. What kind of operating system wouldn't benefit from reliable multicast interprocess communication?
(Log in to post comments)
the point is that this violates the charter for -stable Posted Jan 22, 2013 20:42 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
That's not the main point here.
The main point is that this violates the charter for -stable releases.
Specifically, -stable releases are not supposed to have any fixes in them that are not in upstream (or at least that are not fixed in some other way in upstream if the exact fix won't work)
This is to prevent the -stable branches from becoming dead-ends where people cannot upgrade from 2.x.y to 2.x+n.z because 2.x+n doesn't implement some feature that was put in 2.x.y
Adding an API/ABI like this is exactly what this policy was intended to prevent
At this point, 2.4.x is no longer a -stable branch, it's a full fork.
the point is that this violates the charter for -stable Posted Jan 22, 2013 20:46 UTC (Tue) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] LTSI was never meant to be a stable branch; it is an independent kernel maintained for a specific industry. The inclusion of backported features and such was always part of the plan. The hope is to at least get various vendors working from the same kernel with added goodies and part of the process of getting them closer to upstream.
the point is that this violates the charter for -stable Posted Jan 22, 2013 23:50 UTC (Tue) by chrisV (subscriber, #43417) [Link]
LTSI has got nothing to do with 3.4-stable, which continues to be maintained as a blessed long-term kernel, and is targeted to be supported until the end of 2014. 3.4.27 came out two days ago.
the point is that this violates the charter for -stable Posted Jan 23, 2013 9:45 UTC (Wed) by kugel (subscriber, #70540) [Link]
I was thinking the same, until I realized that I mixed up LTSI with kernel.org's longterm/stable release.
I guess for LTSI it's fine to drift away, and create a bit of pressure to upstream highly desired changes.
the point is that this violates the charter for -stable Posted Jan 23, 2013 14:51 UTC (Wed) by butlerm (subscriber, #13312) [Link]
This isn't a "stable" branch, but it certainly does present an ABI issue. Something that is this widely used should have a slot reserved in the kernel ABI even if the mainstream kernel developers are undecided about whether to incorporate it themselves. That handily solves the ABI issue.
The API issue is easily handled by having applications use a library that has fallback means of communication in case the running kernel doesn't implement the interface concerned.
the point is that this violates the charter for -stable Posted Jan 24, 2013 10:17 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Yup. I'm surprised it's that controversial. Come on: Linus widely said that Linux will never support STREAMS yet we have syscall numbers dedicated to that support in mainstream Linux. If it's used in relatively large number of installations it deserves at least numbers reserved in mainline kernel.
|
|||||||||||||