Request: contributor to put DKMS into Fedora Extras
Warren Togami
wtogami at redhat.com
Tue Mar 15 00:27:56 UTC 2005
Matt Domsch wrote:
> Dell's lawyers have a couple concerns with the Fedora Corporate
> Contributors Agreement. Until those get settled, I and my teammates
> can't become official Contributors.
>
> But, we'd like to see DKMS (http://linux.dell.com/dkms) included into
> Fedora Extras ASAP. Given recent discussions on fedora-devel-list,
> several people think that's a good idea.
>
> To that end, would any of the current approved contributors care to
> contribute DKMS into Extras? It's GPL of course.
>
> Then at some future date, we can negotiate to transfer ownership to
> Gary Lerhaupt once Dell has official contributor status.
>
Based on our past discussion about DKMS on this list, we have technical
concerns about it and are not sure this is a direction we want to head.
The kernel-devel and kernel-module-foo approach is something that we
have been working on as a supportable alternative. We need to better
standardize, fix and document it, then better automate package builds in
order to provide all kernel modules quickly for new released kernels.
This being said if DKMS can live as an optional and inobtrusive
alternative to kernel-module-foo packages then it may be acceptable to
include both. I am guessing that kernel module sources need to be
prepared specially for DKMS? This may be fine if they NEVER conflict
with kernel-module-foo.
There are other concerns like DKMS installing files that are not tracked
by RPM's database that are of varying levels of badness. We need to
further discuss the pros and cons here along with the kernel-module-foo
package approach.
Warren Togami
wtogami at redhat.com
More information about the fedora-extras-list
mailing list