Kernel Modules in Fedora -x

[Jesse Keating]

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:18:46 -0500
Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:

> I thought RHEL made some effort to avoid breaking the 3rd party
> modules that their customers rely on with every kernel update (and
> that's probably a very large reason they have customers...) while
> Linus and fedora refuse to provide a stable interface.

This is only helpful in RHEL5.  not really helpful in 4/3/2.1 and I'm
not entirely convinced that it's a good thing either.  I just don't
know the problem space well enough.

> 
> > One "bright" idea was
> > to let Fedora come up with a way to make it better.  
> 
> You mean - like actually define an interface and stick to it at least 
> through a kernel major revision number?

Which is again not helpful in Fedora as we jump major numbers all the
time.  The very crux of my argument is that if it's good enough to be
in Fedora, it's good enough to be in the kernel package.  And if it's
not, it's not.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20070803/053dc889/attachment.sig>