kernel modules/kmods/dkms (Re: Plan for tomorrows (20070906) FESCO meeting)

[Till Maas]

On Sa September 8 2007, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 11:24 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > dwmw2's proposal afaics mainly reads as "no
> > separately packaged *kernel-modules* (in source or binary form) in
> > Fedora at all"; but he uses the term "kmods" here and there (and kmod

> Indeed it was not the intention -- I used the term 'kmod' to refer to a
> generic evil. I have clarified the wording now.
>
> Not only do I think we shouldn't ship modules in binary form, I think we
> shouldn't be shipping them in source form as dkms payload either.

There are some open questions to how to get a new kernel module into Fedora, 
once this proposal is accepted.

Who will decide whether a new kernel module will be accepted as a patch for 
the kernel rpm? Will there be a guideline on how to add a kernel module as a 
patch to the kernel rpm? How will proposed kernel modules be reviewed / 
decided, whether or not it is good enough to be included in the kernel rpm?

Regards,
Till
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 827 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20070908/5982586c/attachment.sig>