Udev in b6_0: to be or not to be

Matthew Burgess matthew at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue Jun 1 11:46:13 PDT 2004

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 13:36:48 -0500
"Larry Lawrence" <larry at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:

> "Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote in message
> news:40BCB3B1.5060907 at linuxfromscratch.org...
> >
> > This is exactly the reason we _wanted_ to put udev and hotplug into
> > HEAD, so that they could be tested on a larger number of systems
> > than just the ones that us BELFS testers were playing with. If we
> > didn't do that, we could only "play follow the leader" and wait for
> > the other distros to make everything right with the world before we
> > put it into the book, and the community has said they don't want to
> > go that direction.
> And this is exactly why HEAD should not become test at points in time
> (usually determined by releases). The differences of opinion really do
> come down to:
> Do you put Unstable into Test when it becomes stable


> OR Do you pull Unstable from Test when it proves unstable.

> The community prefers the latter, something I will probably never
> understand.

I think the confusion regarding our approach has been caused by the now
defunct b6_0 branch.  I thought this was already covered in the
cvs-structure document?  Maybe it wasn't clear enough?  I'd like to see
unstable tagged at particular points in time when it is deemed stable
enough to receive wider testing.  *If* that wider testing proves the
instability of a particular feature, then of course, corrective actions
will need to be taken.  These may be simply providing patches(as in this
udev/hotplug issue), or backing out the feature entirely, if luck has
dictated that the only boxes that will support the feature happen to be
HEAD maintainers machines.

> PS: I thought Jeremy and Matt killed b6_0, to be restored to its new
> form upon release of gcc-3.4.1.

Its not been officially killed yet, though it will be shortly.



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list