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

Re: Attention kernel module project packagers!

On Tuesday 15 August 2006 09:40, David Woodhouse wrote:
> I'm not necessarily suggesting that we shouldn't have an agreed method
> of building kernel module packages at all -- just that we shouldn't have
> any such packages in Core or Extras.
> There _are_ relatively sane (and legal, unlike nvidia/ati stuff) cases
> where one might want to build a separate module -- like the NTFS modules
> in Livna, for example. And other 'new drivers' which aren't yet
> upstream. Of course you're right when you agree with me that those new
> drivers shouldn't be in Core or Extras -- but that doesn't mean we
> shouldn't provide a way to package them at all.

Given that we don't want it on Core or Extras, I'm pretty happy to let random 
3rd party packager do whatever they want for packaging modules.  I'm not 
interested in dictating how they should handle this ugly hack.

Your example about ntfs is not usable w/out the userland (ntfsprogs), which 
nobody wants to touch due to legal reasons, and would be obsoleted by FUSE 
anyway where the most recent ntfs support is done entirely in userspace.

There are many more things the packaging committee can spend time worrying 
about.  Packaging of kernel modules isn't one of them IMHO.

Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora

Attachment: pgpwPhPRv2uhc.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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