[fab] Non-standard kernels in the Fedora Multiverse

[Rex Dieter]

Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 00:01 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 May 2006, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>>> I think that this request may fit into more of an Alternatives project
>>> where multiple kernels and other tools might be able to look at.
>> Yeah.  We killed off Alternatives a while back -- not because it wasn't a 
>> good idea, but because it wasn't a good idea at the time.
> 
> I'm still not convinced it's a good idea... it does little to encourage
> actually getting things merged.  And lots of forks ==> more work.

Yeah, but it's not *your* work, it's someone else who *wants* to do it. 
  I think we should foster an empowering environment, and not take a 
stance of "you can't do that!".

>> Here's the fallback position: Fernando continues to maintain the CCRMA
>> kernel in his own yum repo, and *everything else* gets pulled into Extras
>> over time.  (To the best of my knowledge, none of the CCRMA apps *require*
>> the CCRMA kernel -- it's just a huge help for getting any actual work
>> done.)  That way, at least Fernando has a mechanism to spread the workload
>> for maintaining CCRMA among several assistants, and can spend most of his
>> time maintaining his own kernel as he sees fit.
> 
> While that can work, I think this puts users in the worst place as a
> non-mainline kernel will inevitably lag in terms of security fixes, etc.
> And any kernel modules that are built in Extras won't be able to be used
> for that kernel.

Well, that should be their (the users') call to make, understanding the 
risks/rewards for using bits from Alternatives (of CCRMA).

-- Rex