[Fedora-packaging] Mail voting on kmdl adoption

[seth vidal]

On Fri, 2006-08-11 at 15:43 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-08-11 at 12:58 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> 
> > d) support for coinstallation of kmdls should be pushed into FC6 asap
> >    (working plugin has already been submitted here and tested be
> >    ATrpms users). Requires a positive vote on a-c)
> 
> Rather than vote on these issues as Axel suggests (which we can
> certainly do), I think that perhaps we should look at a different
> approach:
> 
> Just throwing it out here, but I don't really see consensus on this
> issue. People either like kmod or kmdl, and I think there are definite
> pros/cons to each approach. My instinct is that if we vote on Axel's
> items, they will not pass. And I don't think it is because the kmdl
> standard is broken or outright wrong, I think much of it is due to the
> fact that so much pain and effort went into making the kmod standard
> (which works for the majority of cases) that people are honestly
> unwilling to start over.
> 
> So, here's the heretical proposition: 
> 
> How about we permit either kmod OR kmdl as an acceptable standard? E.g.
> Document both, and let the packager choose?
> 
> I see kernel module packaging as one of the last barriers to bringing in
> contributions from open source, unencumbered 3rd party repo packages.
> Given the near religious nature of this debate, maybe a little
> flexibility (not infinite flexibility) is merited here for the greater
> good?

umm - then we'll need both plugins and it will be near impossible to
make sure they play nicely.

moreover - if a package switches owners and one likes kmod while the
previous one likes kmdl then we're kinda, umm, screwed.

the packaging committee should make a choice, go with and then it is
done.

that's the whole point of the committee.

-sv