[Fedora-packaging] Re: Kernel Module Packaging Standard Teleconference

[Axel Thimm]

On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 04:46:10PM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 12:43 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> * +0.5 for moving uname-r *if* there is strong evidence that it will be
>   acceptable for all major stakeholders (Fedora, RHEL, kerneldrivers.org
>   in particular), -0.5 otherwise

chicken and egg problem?

> > While the single items are all factually correct
> 
> Strong words.  The above summary and the detailed doc contains several
> inaccuracies and omissions (eg. about agnosticity, flexibility, buildsys
> support, kabi, support(ability) in other distros etc), luckily mostly in
> the less important parts.  I guess this is due to not understanding all
> aspects of the current scheme and the environment it is designed to work
> in.  I won't spend time detailing those because I don't have time to do
> that right now, and even if I had, IMO there are no real reasons to
> consider/discuss its adoption besides the uname-r move bit.  (Yes, sucky
> statement, but shrug, it's the best I can do in the time I have
> available for this at the moment.)

Yes, it's quite lame. If you accuse the write-up of inaccuracies/ommisions
you have to go into details. Even defusing that it's not about the
important parts is not enough.

No, really, I don't have time to waste myself, still I deliver for
every statement I make. If you don't people may consider it FUD.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20060816/a1d4d5ac/attachment.sig>