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

Re: Attention kernel module project packagers!



Leszek Matok wrote:
Dnia 15-08-2006, wto o godzinie 09:27 -0400, Jesse Keating napisaƂ(a):
(...) all kinds of weird hacks to how they are (...)
Arguing over which ugly ass hack to apply to be able to package kernel modules is a bikeshed argument.
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.

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!).

Nobody is stopping use from using separate kernel modules and we cant dictate what users or other repositories do. This discussion is merely about what Fedora Project should do and having multiple packaging standards is a bad idea to promote.


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).

If the kernel package maintainers dont have time to maintain them and someone else packages modules in Fedora Extras, the kernel maintainers wont be able to help fix any bugs with these modules loaded. So in essence, we are being self contradictory in this solution.


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.


Sorry but the board decision on Xorg 7.1 was for that specific instance. We havent set any general policy on how updates are handled and Max Spevack specifically mentioned that we are not setting any precedent with this decision.

Morever the current kernel module packaging approved by FESCo does not prevent you from booting into older kernels.

Rahul


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