Plan for tomorrows (20070726) FESCO meeting

Hans de Goede j.w.r.degoede at
Thu Jul 26 15:48:57 UTC 2007

David Woodhouse wrote:
> 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.

I must say I like this approach, it avoids the whole problem of having to 
rebuild kmods all the time and of wether to delay kernel security updates until 
all kmods are fixetd etc. I do think however that this might cause some pain 
for Dave Jones, whose job already is hard. Maybe we should ask him what he 
thinks about this?



More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list