[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 09:52, Leszek Matok wrote:
> Isn't the "kmdls" system meant to be the cure to all of this? Is it even
> a hack? I don't even think the package names are truly ugly.

I personally find having the kernel version embedded into the NAME of a 
package is pretty damned ugly.  I find it ugly in the compat packages we 
generate too, but that's a different story for a different day.

> Fedora is meant to be a testbed of open source technology, right? If so,
> what's wrong with having separate kernel modules available for me to
> test and search for bugs? I don't want to patch and compile the kernel
> only to see if some module works for me. If it's an incomplete device
> driver, it still can work on my hardware or I can provide some feedback
> about the features not working. Fedora is packaging lots of broken
> software which people still want to use (and I'm writing this in
> Evolution!).
> I agree that it's better to make kernel package maintainers to maintain
> all of patches and additional modules, but they don't have the manpower
> to do it and support it (not to mention the ones they can't put there,
> but other repo can).
> People are going to make kernel module rpms anyhow. Forcing them to use
> flawed design that's hard to use, maintain, keep in sync with kernel
> updates and impossible to boot older kernels is worse than pushing Xorg
> 7.1 for FC5 which we're not doing because... we recognize the need for
> people to use off-tree kernel modules :) The Board has spoken - using
> external kernel modules is a valid user choice and it's important to
> make it easier for the users. That's my understanding of The Board's
> decision.
> So, kmdls are the next step.

I still don't buy this argument.  kmod and kmdls both fail in the same way 
without further ugly ass hacks to rpm or depsolvers.  I don't buy that kmod 
makes it impossible to boot older kernels, that's just not the case.  I think 
you're falling for somebody's FUD.  I don't like what we have (kmod), I like 
the proposed "fix" (kmdls) even less.  I like the idea of changing one semi 
broken method for another (even more IMHO) broken method least of all.  If we 
were to make any change, I'd make the change to toss the whole thing out to 
something external to Core / Extras.  Somebody can provide a module if you 
want to test it out, but I don't think it needs to be let loose upon the 
users at large until it is ready to either be A) in the kernel source rpm, or 
B) merged upstream.

Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora

Attachment: pgpgRydy9J0Y1.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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