[asterisk-dev] Re: Kernel modules => mainline kernel

[Tzafrir Cohen]

On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 11:03:55AM -0800, Paul Cadach wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> >We commited some code. Tested it on a Fedora system. Noticed Fedora did
> >a little bit of backport of a tiny kernel feature. So their 2.6.18
> >kernels actually behave like 2.6.19 . This is the thing that was
> >commited into zaptel 2.6.13 .
> >
> >Oops. This badly broke people with real 2.6.18 kernels (I didn't notice
> >this at first in this 2.6.18 Debian system, as debugfs is disabled
> >there). No problem: reverted the situation in Zaptel branch 1.2 .
> 
> Each feature/API change SHOULD have its onw "flag" (#define somewhere) to 
> allow to choose correct API usage.
> Take look at chan_zap and zaptel/libpri/libss7 - chan_zap verifies presence 
> of required feature by checking #defines come from zaptel/libpri/libss7.
> 

We try to do that. Have a look at xpp/Makefile .

However beyond a certain stage this makes the code littered with #ifdefs
and hurts readability.

> >Only to get some complaints from a member of this list who uses some
> >kernel 2.6.18 from Fedora Core 5. His post was responded with: "sure,
> >zaptel with build with your kernel. Just apply this tiny patch".
> 
> Complain RedHat about non-flagged backports they perform and breaks 
> compatibility. 

Complain to RH as much as you wish. They don't have problems with kernel
code that they distribute.

> BTW, is the rest of zaptel compiling well? If so, Xorcom 
> should take care about their xpp's drivers...

I have asked a similar question on this list monthes ago. No answer. If
I followed your guildlines, RHEL4 users would have failed to build
Zaptel from source.

> 
> As a developer you cannot track all changes made in individual 
> distributions, so you should have feedback channel from users who can 
> notify you about a problems, then you should drill this case down until 
> solution/workaround will be provided.
> 
> >So the net result is that installing Zaptel on your own remains a
> >painful task.
> 
> Are you sure RedHat will not just disable building zaptel? If so, user will 
> have much more pain to re-build kernel (most distributions have their own 
> tricks to build kernel correctly). And, who can guarantee RedHat will 
> perform consistancy checks when they do such backports? They can verify 
> just parts needs to be build, nothing else.

RedHat backports lots of stuff its users need. 

It is not the only one. Everyone is free to backport and test backports.

However another concern of mine is if a client of mine asks me: and what
happen if tommorow <your company> vanishes off the face of the earth?"

-- 
               Tzafrir Cohen       
icq#16849755                    jabber:tzafrir at jabber.org
+972-50-7952406           mailto:tzafrir.cohen at xorcom.com       
http://www.xorcom.com  iax:guest at local.xorcom.com/tzafrir