Kernel Modules in Fedora -x
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
Fri Aug 3 19:37:13 UTC 2007
Todd Zullinger wrote:
> RHEL has customers -- customers who pay good money so that Red Hat can
> pay developers to spend time backporting things to maintain ABI.
Which, if someone would pick an interface and stick to it, wouldn't have
to be done at all.
> If you really need what RHEL provides, use RHEL or CentOS. Why should
> Fedora duplicate that?
When something works right, everyone can use the same thing. But people
also need something RHEL and CentOS don't provide, which is current
application versions.
>>> 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?
>
> Right, and have davej and the kernel team spend all of their time
> backporting?
There would be no need to backport if the kernel had an interface.
> I'd rather have the kernel updated in a timely manner.
> The place to argue for a stable interface is upstream. Hasn't this
> been said over and over before?
I just appreciate the fact that on my Windows and Mac boxes I don't have
to get or rebuild every vendor-supplied driver after every system update
and I think Solaris works that way too. I'm not convinced it's
necessary. As an interesting aside - has anyone considered the
viability of building fedora's userland around the opensolaris kernel
like http://www.gnusolaris.org/gswiki is doing with ubuntu?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list