Plans for tomorrow's (20090529) FESCo meeting

Seth Vidal skvidal at
Fri May 29 14:58:25 UTC 2009

On Fri, 29 May 2009, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:

> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 03:33:37PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Josh Boyer wrote:
>>> Or perhaps a future FESCo will revist kmods.
>> FWIW, I'd certainly vote for a proposal to allow kmods if I get into FESCo
>> and may even bring such a proposal in front of the new FESCo (though IMHO
>> it should not be the old regime with explicit FESCo approval for each, that
>> didn't make any sense, instead there should be no restrictions other than a
>> license compatible with that of the kernel, and of course the restrictions
>> applying to all packages).
> Could someone dispassionately summarise the reasons why kmods were
> rejected in the first place?  I assume the reason was the overhead of
> maintaining and updating out-of-tree kernel patches?

1. out-of-tree kernel modules should not be encouraged - if it can't be in 
the upstream kernel then why are we including it in fedora?

2. the behavior for multiply-installed kernels and kernel modules with 
updates is not-wonderful

3. kernels being released into a repo and the kernel-modules not being 
caught up plays hell w/proper updates


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list