Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
/me is late in the discussion -- and it seems everything important is
already said.
Just to make sure: I also don't like the idea of having kernels in
extras or adding a CCRMA-Kernel to core. What I fear most besides the
maintenance nightmare: openVZ, vserver, swsusp2, reiser4 <insert 10
other projects> would probably want their own Fedora-Kernel in that
case, too. And I don't think we really want that ;-)
As I see it, the bigger picture here is whether to resurrect
Alternatives or not.
If so, the kernel can be treated just like any other alternative (ie,
core-replacing pkg). As long as someone steps up to maintain it, I have
no problem with alternative kernels. As a corollary, I'd venture the
likelihood of volunteers to be kernel maintainers to be small.
Personally, I'm in favor of the general idea of Alternatives, but if
it's going to happen, it will require a lot of time, care and feeding,
having it's own set of complications and a need for clear standards and
rules.
-- Rex
