shimen at gmail.com
Tue Mar 1 15:38:07 CST 2005
I am not sure but i do remember reading it somewhere in the wiki....
and i think its wording was "anything that is rejected upstream" not
"anything that is not accepted upstream"... after thinking about
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 21:22:57 +0000, Matthew Garrett <mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 07:40 +1100, Shimon wrote:
> > Isn't the real reason because ubuntu's policy is not to take any
> > patches on the kernel which are not accepted upstream (fedora also has
> > this policy thats why they made rhgb... but thats out of the question
> > as it takes about 20 seconds till it starts as it loads x....) and to
> > my memory bootsplash is rejected as it doesn't work on many gfx
> > cards....
> Mm? There's plenty of code in the ubuntu kernel that hasn't been
> accepted upstream, and in some cases never will be. There's a difference
> between code that's unacceptable because it's bad and invasive code
> (like bootsplash or swsusp2 in its current form) and code that either
> hasn't been merged or doesn't quite fit upstream's shipping criteria.
> Matthew Garrett | mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org
> ubuntu-devel mailing list
> ubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
>From the desk of shimon.
More information about the ubuntu-devel