Posted by: Anonymous
on August 01, 2008 11:36 PM
I'm not sure where the error came from, but BLAG was never "laughed and cursed out of the room" as we never submitted anything upstream nor had any discussions about this with upstream. I didn't see much point to it--they certainly knew what was there, more or less, and it would work it's way upstream if they really wanted it.
In fact, I don't even think I mentioned the project outside of the blag namespace until Oliva came along. At that point there was quite an explosion about the issue on fedora-devel, with lots of ugly FUD.
Alan Cox had mentioned something along those lines too:
Alan Cox wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 03:07:44AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Considering how much effort gNewSense, BLAG, Dynebolic et al put into
>> it, I don't get the impression that upstream is interested in that.
> Upstream has encountered nothing but extremists, nobody pragmatically
> interested in working through the needed changes one driver at a time with
> the maintainer to keep them working nicely. This has left a bad taste
> to say the least.
It's interesting those three distros are getting dragged into it as I don't think *any* of them (and BLAG and dynebolic certainly not) had gone upstream.
I just cleaned out the kernel and made announcement to the BLAG lists. Oliva took a script I did (which was based on one I got from gnewsense), greatly improved it, and is currently building new kernels everyday with it (builds for Fedora 7, 8, 9 and rawhide!). He is doing an *excellent* job of this, and I'm very happy about that. :) (not to mention quite relieved- it's a task I didnt really like...)
I try to stay out of the debate as much as I can, but BLAG seems to get dragged into it in threads and articles with inaccuracies, so I feel I need to correct those.