[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: kernel modules in extras criteria

On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 01:18:19PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
 > Questions:
 > - Should a kernel module where the upstream has no plans of merging
 > with the upstream kernel be allowed in extras? (This means it could
 > stay around in extras forever)
 > - If upstream says they are going to try and merge their module, but
 > never does (lack of time, technical issues, no real desire to, etc),
 > should the module be removed after some time?
 > - Should there be any other criteria? (renew approval every new
 > release, only allow modules for 1 year and remove, etc)

- Who fixes the inevitable bugs that get reported ?

I'll state this publically now: If I get Fedora kernel bugs filed,
and they have modules loaded that aren't shipped as part of the
kernel rpm, I am _completely_ uninterested in dealing with those bugs
unless they can be shown to be present without them loaded.
This is regardless of whether they're 100% opensource or not, it comes
down to time.  I don't have time to deal with all the bugs we have
*today*, and I for sure don't have time to go running around grabbing
the sources for out of tree modules.



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]