How to package kernel module

Jeff Spaleta jspaleta at
Thu Sep 1 21:17:23 UTC 2005

On 9/1/05, Dave Jones <davej at> wrote:
> This might sound like a positive reason _for_ including it in extras,
> but the situation is a lot of these drivers are of so poor quality
> that I really have no faith in them at all.  If I get kernel bug
> reports filed with modules I don't recognise, the first thing I'm
> going to ask is to try and repeat it without those modules, regardless
> of whether they're GPL, have full source etc.

Assuming kernel modules will at some point exist in
there a way to have Extras modules 'taint' the log messages so that
its easier to spot this sort of situation so the general triagers can
ask reporters to reproduce the problem with the addon modules removed?
Since you make it sound like a very common situation, is there a way
to make it easier to spot so you don't have to be the only one asking
for people to retest?

> There's also another problem.  When people start depending on out-of-tree
> kernel modules, they become reluctant to upgrade their kernel.

This is a very tough nut.   I really don't have any policy or even any
wacky un-implementable tool implementations that are going to pretend
to address this. As long as upstream kernel is driving forward
agressively without an established API for external module writers
there really isn't much to be done here. Extras modules are simply
going to break with kernel updates on occasion and downstream
packagers are going to have to bust their hump fixing the addon


More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list