[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Plan for tomorrows (20070726) FESCO meeting
- From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2 infradead org>
- To: Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora leemhuis info>
- Cc: Development discussions related to Fedora Core <fedora-devel-list redhat com>, fedora-kernel-list redhat com
- Subject: Re: Plan for tomorrows (20070726) FESCO meeting
- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:26:25 +0100
On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 17:17 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> I tend to say that approach is fine for you, Hans and some other
> developers that are familiar with kernel-coding as those people have
> shown to be able to get code upstream and know how to work with
> upstream.
Yes, although I'd phrase it as "that approach is fine for anyone who
we'd actually want maintaining kernel code with the 'Fedora' name on
it".
> But the code in question IMHO should show potential for a
> nearby upstream merge before it's being added.
Absolutely.
> But users and packagers want some modules that do not head upstream in
> the near future -- let's take the lirc kernel-modules as example,
> where the lirc-upstream afaik is not actively working on getting the
> code into linus kernel. Nobody else is doing that either. I'd prefer
> to not have stuff like that in fedora's kernel rpm, as that could soon
> and in a major maintenance nightmare, which we all want to avoid
> afaics.
It doesn't become any _less_ of a nightmare just because you ship it
separately. If we don't want it Fedora's kernel RPM, then we don't want
it in Fedora at all.
--
dwmw2
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]