Plan for tomorrows (20080522) FESCO meeting

[Josh Boyer]

On Thu, 22 May 2008 01:58:25 -0300
Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat.com> wrote:
 
> > Can you point me to where you've approached the upstream kernel
> > maintainers about this?
> 
> I haven't.  I'm told others have, and have been ridiculed.  From what
> I gather from the LKML archives and personal experiences there, I have
> no reason to disbelieve them.

Ok, but you said you had facts.  Now you're telling me you only have
hearsay?

> >> > I'm not sure there is a way out.  However perhaps you can enlist
> >> > some help from someone that would be willing to do that.
> >> 
> >> Finding someone else to do it might enable more patches to be posted,
> >> but it wouldn't make it possible to achieve the goal.
> 
> > Because?
> 
> Because upstream doesn't want to achieve this goal, and actively
> refuses to accept changes essential to get there.

Pointers to this would be nice.  Mailing list archives, IRC
conversations, anything.

> > If those patches get integrated, then wouldn't the parts you find
> > objectionable be gone?
> 
> Not all of them, no.

?

> > I certainly didn't think you intended to _replace_ the main kernel
> > package.  But I don't agree with even providing a completely different
> > alternative "kernel-libre" package.  If it can't be built as a flavor
> > of the existing kernel package, then I don't see it being approved for
> > inclusion.
> 
> So much for http://www.linux-books.us/fedora_core_0001.php

So much for having a productive conversation.  You're avoiding my point
(or think it's entirely hopeless) and spewing rhetoric again.

Rehashing the same conversation to come to the same results isn't
something I'm inclined to do.  David Woodhouse and Alan Cox have
offered to help you work with upstream in the past.  If you choose to
not take that offer of help to accomplish your goals, that's fine.

josh