From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263894AbTGXOR5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:17:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S271198AbTGXOR5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:17:57 -0400 Received: from 81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk ([81.2.122.30]:2688 "EHLO 81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263894AbTGXOR4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:17:56 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:43:03 +0100 From: John Bradford Message-Id: <200307241443.h6OEh3Qd000249@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rpjday@mindspring.com Subject: Re: time for some drivers to be removed? Cc: h@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > i've mentioned this before, but in a perfect world, should it > be possible to build a release version of the kernel with > "make allyesconfig". Why? The kernel wouldn't boot on i386 anyway, as it would be too large. > this is generally not possible, since there's always the occasional > broken driver that just won't compile. Just don't compile it in. > more to the point, there are drivers that seem to be perpetually > broken. as an example, the riscom8 driver has been borked for as > long as i can remember. at some point, shouldn't something like > this either be fixed or just removed? I'm sure a patch to fix it would be accepted. > what's the point of perpetually bundling a driver that doesn't even > compile? Some people might be interested in it. Maybe somebody would like to fix it, but can't buy the physical hardware for any price. Maybe everybody who has the hardware can't fix it because other kernel bugs prevent them from using the latest kernels on their machines. Why remove it when it's doing no harm whatsoever? John.