Are packages w/o necessary kernel modules allowed?

[Kevin Kofler]

Till Maas wrote:
> IMHO having both in RPMFusion with a proper dependency is the easiest
> way to install it. Having some package with a missing kernel module
> dependency in Fedora would only make it more complicated for other
> repositories that provide the kernel module and can therefore provide a
> package with a unbroken dependency.

I agree.

Putting stuff in without required dependencies is a bad practice, it's 
better to let other repos provide it along with the required dependency.

That said, of course, there's a big can of worms there, in that we ship many 
things without some optional dependencies which most users will want, but 
which we can't legally ship. E.g. xine-lib without xine-lib-extras-
freeworld, libdvdread without libdvdcss, Gnash without the codecs allowing 
it to actually play back Flash videos (not just pure Flash animations) etc. 
But some people will want the apps even without those optional features, so 
pushing them to the third-party repo entirely is probably a bad solution 
(and for libdvdcss in particular, it would mean RPM Fusion would either have 
to reverse its decision not to ship it or a lot of stuff would have to move 
back to Livna, including many programs currently in Fedora). I guess the 
real solution for that particular issue is to use reverse soft dependencies 
("Enhances"), which are being discussed for future versions of RPM.

But if the package does not work at all without the dependency, I really 
don't see what the benefit of shipping it in Fedora, as opposed to the 
repository containing the dependency, is.

Now of course, my personal opinion is that Fedora should just allow external 
kernel modules again, but judging from the feedback about that question 
during the FESCo election campaign, I doubt I'll ever get a majority for 
that in FESCo. And this issue would come up anyway for proprietary kernel 
modules. (E.g. why is libXNVCtrl in Fedora?)

        Kevin Kofler