From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932784AbWFMCb0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jun 2006 22:31:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932787AbWFMCbZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jun 2006 22:31:25 -0400 Received: from proof.pobox.com ([207.106.133.28]:8106 "EHLO proof.pobox.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932784AbWFMCbZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jun 2006 22:31:25 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:31:19 -0700 From: Paul Dickson To: Roman Zippel Cc: hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: klibc - another libc? Message-Id: <20060612193119.e0ff94d8.paul@permanentmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: <44869397.4000907@tls.msk.ru> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.9.2; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 03:15:59 +0200 (CEST), Roman Zippel wrote: > On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > > > If you wouldn't remove all old init code at once it would still be > > > possible to build a kernel this way. Why are you making it mandatory? Why > > > don't you leave it optional for a while and only gradually remove the old > > > code? This way distributions/users can experiment with it regarding their > > > current initrd/boot setups. > > > > Linus vetoed that option years ago. > > Name dropping is of course always impressive - scares little kids and all. > Could you please provide more info, what exactly he vetoed? His rule was no code was to be added to the kernel code unless it already had a user. So there would be no adding code hoping a user would appear. If I'm wrong, I'll likely be corrected... :-) -Paul