[fab] Non-standard kernels in the Fedora Multiverse

[Rex Dieter]

Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 00:11 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 00:01 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>> Or do we fire up thoughts on Alternatives again?  Somewhere that we can
>> host replacement packages that folks can use to assemble 'Fedora'
>> variants but not be tied to the kernel or whatever.  If we use the same
>> rules, or come up with a good rule set for Alternatives, same package
>> quality, same build systems, etc... we should be able to call it Fedora.
> 
> How do you define "same package quality" if it's an alternate
> implementation?  

It follows the same packaging standards, review process, etc...

> And starting to get bug reports from J. Foo's Fedora
> that has a drastically different kernel or glibc or ... is going to make
> things very very difficult for developers.

Not for you, for whoever is maintaining the Alternatives pkg.

-- Rex