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

Re: kernel modules in extras criteria



On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 13:18 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> - 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)

Absolutely not.

> - 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?

Most definitely, yes.

> - Should there be any other criteria? (renew approval every new
> release, only allow modules for 1 year and remove, etc)

We should allow only modules which Dave is willing to support, and which
are of sufficient quality (and mindshare) that they are _ready_ to go
upstream. Recent examples of this include the USB Speedtouch DSL modem
driver just before FC3, the bcm43xx driver in FC5, and GFS2 in FC6.

Note that these are the criteria we use for adding something to the
Fedora kernel RPM, and that's what those example were. There's a reason
for that -- anything which is of sufficient quality to be in Fedora at
all, can go directly into the Fedora Core kernel RPM without mucking
around with separate packages.

I think there is absolutely no justification for _separate_ kernel
module packages within Fedora Core or Extras. If it's good enough for
Fedora, it should be in the kernel RPM proper. Conversely, if Dave
doesn't want to support it, it absolutely shouldn't be in Core or
Extras.

> Any other thoughts on this issue?

Kernel module packaging is for _outsiders_, like Livna. Not for Core and
Extras. I feel very strongly that we should have an outright ban on all
kernel-module packages for Core and Extras.

-- 
dwmw2


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