[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: RFC: kernel-modules in Fedora Extras

On Fri, 2006-01-06 at 11:30 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> The most important rule for packages with kernel modules: There are
> always at least two SRPMS -- one builds a userland package (tools,
> documentation, license, udev configuration etc) of the source, the other
> builds packages with *only* the kernel-module(s). The packager is free
> to split the userland-package further into one with a the general 
> userland parts, that works fine without the kernel-modules, one with
> the kernel-module related parts and one with the kernel-module(s). 
> The userland package with the parts that are related to the
> kernel-module(s) must follow follow the standard guidelines for Fedora 
> Extras packages with one additional rule:
> - MUST: The package needs to require the belonging kernel-module
>   with something like "Requires: kmod-%{name} = %{version}"

What happens if a driver gets merged into the kernel upstream?  Or if
davej et. al decide to put it in the Core kernel package for one reason
or another?  Will the Core kernel package now have to have a
Provides/Obsoletes: kmod-%{name} ?

Cases like this probably won't come up all that much, but it will
happen.  In general, what happens when a module moves from Extras to

> Besides rules around the packaging there is one additional *before*
> you start packaging a kernel module for Fedora Extras: Open a Review
> bug in http://bugzilla.redhat.com and ask FESCo for permission if this
> module is allowed for Extras. This requires that you give at least the 
> following informations:
> - Name of the package
> - URL of the project and a tarball of the latest version
> - License
> - A publishable explanation from the author(s) why the module is not
>   merged with the mainline kernel yet and when it's planed to get
> merged. You of course can ask the author to explain it directly in the
> bug report.

> Why all this?
> - The Fedora Project wants to encourage driver developers to merge their
>   sources in the kernel
> - It easier for everyone if the modules are in the main kernel
> - There is often a good reason why the kernel developers refuse to merge
>   a driver. If it's not good enough for the kernel, why should it be 
>   good enough for Fedora?
> - Most modules that are maintained independently of the kernel have
>   licensing issues that also make it impossible to ship them in Fedora 
>   Extras.

There are some modules out there that have no intentions of merging into
upstream, such as openAFS.  That fact alone shouldn't be a reason to not
package it for Extras.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]