kernels in the packaging universe

[Dave Jones]

On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 02:46:15PM -0500, seth vidal wrote:
 > On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 13:43 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
 > > Dave Jones wrote:
 > > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 02:06:39PM -0500, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote:
 > > > 
 > > >  > To the best of my knowledge, the problem you have with kmods/alternate 
 > > >  > kernels is that people complain when they break, and they fill bugzilla 
 > > >  > with bugs that don't make sense -- because people don't understand that 
 > > >  > they're running funky kernels.
 > > >  > 
 > > >  > Right?  Are there any other reasons not to package these alternate 
 > > >  > kernels?
 > > >  > 
 > > >  > Because that's a valid reason.  But it also gives us something to shoot 
 > > >  > for: better reporting tools.
 > > > 
 > > > The bugzilla issue is the #1 reason.
 > > > I don't want to do another round-trip in bugzilla where I have to ask..
 > > > 
 > > > "Now try and repeat this issue without kmod-blah loaded".
 > > 
 > > Personally, I consider this more of a bug triaging failure.  kernel bugs 
 > > should only be accepted/allowed *only* if from verifiably taint-free 
 > > kernels.  Everything else -> closed/INVALID.
 > > 
 > 
 > but a gpl kernel module won't taint.

Right.  And here's another shocker.. 

People lie.

It's hard to find words to describe how you feel when you find yourself
in a situation like..


* "Hey kernel is broken because blah"

* Do you have 3rd party modules loaded ?

* No

* Much investigation happens. Lots of head scratching.

* Weeks later..

  "Oh, the problem doesn't happen if I rmmod foo.ko"

* Fedora kernels don't ship foo.ko. I hate you so much right now.


This has happened with far more regularity than I'd like.

		Dave

-- 
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk