From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 28 May 2001 16:53:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 28 May 2001 16:53:11 -0400 Received: from ucu-105-116.ucu.uu.nl ([131.211.105.116]:59697 "EHLO ronald.bitfreak.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 28 May 2001 16:53:06 -0400 From: "Ronald Bultje" To: "Ricky Beam" Cc: Subject: RE: [2.4.5] buz.c won't compile Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 22:57:59 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Importance: Normal Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >Actually, it broke at 2.4.3. Go look at the first change to buz.c from >that patch. None at all. It didn't break at 2.4.3, it just didn't compile at all anymore in 2.4.3. It was already kind of broken before that. >PS: I really hate it when people break "functional" things in the >"stable" >tree. (functional and stable are both open to debate.) Nobody broke it. The fact that it didn't compile right was something nobody ever looked at - it was already broken before and I really don't suppose anyone uses it. The words "if it compiles, it'll work" are not true. Really. Ronald PS, how about just removing it from the kernel? Would spare a lot of troubles, and nobody uses it anyway :-).