Plan for tomorrows (20070726) FESCO meeting

Florian La Roche laroche at
Thu Jul 26 12:31:53 UTC 2007

>   Just FYI, kmod's got always low priority from FESCO. The usual
> answer for kmods reviews are "why not kmod is added in upstream kernel
> yet?"
>   I struggled a lot to get first spca5xx kmod in Fedora but failed as
> no one dare to review it. Then after it got considered as unsuccessful
> attempt, I tried on submitting gspca kmod. After  much struggle I got
> KMOD_APPROVED on gspca-kmod package review. But then no one dare to
> review it even after I showed my willingness to maintain it for each
> kernel release in rawhide and with such unfortunate happened things, I
> decided to CLOSE my own package reviews for gspca kmod.
>   I feel really bad for that. I am sure many peoples like to have some
> of the under development kmods in Fedora. I often used to get request
> from peoples about what happened to webcam kmods like gspca I tried to
> add in Fedora.
>   Today also I got query for available webcam drivers in Fedora and
> RHEL, but unfortunately people now need to compromise on webcams for
> available webcam kmods in kernel. There are few webcam kmods which
> are, though under development but working well and their upstream is
> prompt to release updates for newer kernels. These kmods supports most
> of new webcams.
>   But still we are not having those kmods approved in Fedora atleast.

Is this in need to be reviewed by the board or more waiting for
a package review? I'd love to see gspca upstream, but also
a kmod rpm would be superb.

Also while kmods have many problems, I think we'll continue to see
use cases for them, so getting through the pain of maintaining them
does build up useful infrastructure.

Last time I checked, building kmod rpms needed too many additional
requirements, so I decided to stay at "make; make install" for each
new kernel for my own machine.


Florian La Roche

More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list