[Bug 177583] Review Request: zaptel-kmod

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: zaptel-kmod


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177583





------- Additional Comments From jeff at ollie.clive.ia.us  2006-06-09 00:51 EST -------
(In reply to comment #35)
> ok. I'd like to move this forward some... 

Excellent!

> Using the spec/src.rpm from http://repo.ocjtech.us/asterisk-1.2/fedora/5/SRPMS/
> (refered to from the asterisk review), and the "kernel module package" section in
> http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/KernelModules. 
> 
> Name/URL and License are all known from your spec, but the guidelines also ask: 
> 
> "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."
> 
> Can you get that information from upstream? 

I'll see if I can get some sort of statement from Digium, but it seems to be a
combination of "we don't want to go to the bother" and "we don't want to be at
the mercy of the kernel developers".  The zaptel modules work on both 2.4 and
2.6 kernels so there's a lot of compatibility code.  Many of the newer features
of 2.6 aren't taken advantage of.  I'm sure that it would take a lot of work to
cut out the 2.4 compatibility code, rewrite to take more advantage of 2.6 and to
get something that fits the kernel style guidelines.

I'd also bet that the majority of serious asterisk users aren't running asterisk
on the latest & greatest kernel.  In fact there are quite a few using 2.4.  Yet
they all need bug fixes and new features from the latest zaptel modules so there
will likely always be a need to have a standalone package that can compile
against older kernels.  Since you need a standalone package anyway, why go to
the extra work of getting the modules into the mainline kernel?

Anyway, that's the read I get from the upstream developers.

> Also from that page: 
> "All kernel module packages should use the template as a base. Reviewers of
> kernel modules should diff the proposed kernel module packages against the
> template. Only the names and the way the modules itself are build should differ.
> There shouldn't be other differences without a good reason."
> 
> It's unclear what template should be diffed against there. kmodtool (the latest
> version is used by this spec) and thus generates the spec additions exactly as
> required. Is there a default template for the spec file to be used? If so where? 
> I did diff against the thinkpad-kmod, but there is a good deal of whitespace and
> other minor changes that make it difficult to see changes. 
> 
> (BTW, thinkpad-kmod has a typo in it's spec refering to lirc on line 8)

As fas as I can tell there isn't an official template yet.  I've been working
from the thinkpad-kmod and the lirc-kmod packages.



-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.