From:	Daniel Phillips <news-innominate.list.linux.kernel@innominate.de>
Subject: Availability of kdb
Date:	Wed, 06 Sep 2000 20:11:32 +0200
To:	Mike Galbraith <mikeg@weiden.de>
To:	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Mike Galbraith wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Damien Miller wrote:
> 
> > Tools like a KDB would make the kernel a lot more accessible to the
> > time-poor.
> 
> Kdb is available to all.  I think it should be _integrated_ mostly
> because of the (potential) improvement in bug report quality.

Well, yes and no.  As maintained by SGI, kdb is up to date:
ftp://oss.sgi.com/www/projects/kdb/download/ix86/kdb-v1.3-2.4.0-test8-pre4.gz

As maintained in the official ikd package, kdb is unusuably out of
date, at least for me:
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/andrea/ikd/v2.4/2.4.0-test2-ikd2.bz2

Q: If kdb were a kernel option, would the official version be out of
   date, the way it is now?
A: no.

Q: If kdb were a kernel option, would Linus be called on to fix it
   when it breaks?
A: no, obviously not, Linus is too busy

Q: Who would fix it then?
A: Whoever breaks it.

Q: What if Linus breaks it?
A: That's a special case.  I personally will drop whatever I'm doing
   and try to fix it.  I will cordially invite J. Dow, J. Merkey, R.
   Gootch, and various other degenerate powertool lovers to help.

Q: Would kdb in the kernel result in more bugs getting fixed faster?
A: Yes, no doubt

Q: Do we need more bugs fixed faster?
A: Yes, we need that desperately.

Q: Would kdb in the kernel give us more eyes on the bugs, making them
   even shallower than they already are?
A: Why, yes it would.

Q: Will kdb make your kernel bigger or slow it down?
A: Not if you don't use it.

Q: Is kdb a big patch?
A: It's only 93K, zipped.

Q: Then why isn't kdb in the kernel?
A: Uh...

--
Daniel

"With enough Q's and A's, all arguments are shallow"
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/