kmods poll

[Jarod Wilson]

Hans de Goede wrote:
> Josh Boyer wrote:
>> I'd like to just do a brief poll here just to see how many are yay or
>> nay for kmods.  And I'm not talking about their current implementation
>> or the other various ways that the idea can be accomplished, but rather
>> on the idea of having kernel modules as separate packages in general.
>>
>> If you're against the general idea and want to follow up with reasons
>> why that's fine.  I just want to avoid implementation discussions at the
>> moment if possible.
>>
> 
> I'm not sure where I stand, on one hand I would love to see something 
> like the UVC driver to be in a kmod until merged upstream, to add 
> support for recent webcams.
> 
> OTOH, maintaining kmods and especially keeping the repo depsolving 100% 
> with them may be a pain.
> 
> I think that atleast we need a rule that if it isn't heading upstream, 
> there need to be real good reasons to have it in Fedora, if it is 
> heading upstream I think providing a kmod for a while as a service might 
> be a good idea.
> 
> Does anyone know for example why the lirc kernel module

Modules. There are a TON of 'em.

> has never gone upstream?

Christoph Bartelmus seemed to have very little interest in getting 
things upstream, but *just* posted a "Help Wanted" email to the lirc 
mailing list on the 16th. Excerpted from that:

----8<----
3. kernel module clean-up: the final goal should be a kernel
integration, but there a several fine-grain steps inbetween, like
correct usage of __init, __exit, remove all compile time dependancies,
enable support for more than one serial port at a time in lirc_serial,
remove 2.4 compatibility code, etc.
----8<----


-- 
Jarod Wilson
jwilson at redhat.com