On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 00:01 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > On Mon, 8 May 2006, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > I think that this request may fit into more of an Alternatives project > > where multiple kernels and other tools might be able to look at. > > Yeah. We killed off Alternatives a while back -- not because it wasn't a > good idea, but because it wasn't a good idea at the time. I'm still not convinced it's a good idea... it does little to encourage actually getting things merged. And lots of forks ==> more work. > Here's the fallback position: Fernando continues to maintain the CCRMA > kernel in his own yum repo, and *everything else* gets pulled into Extras > over time. (To the best of my knowledge, none of the CCRMA apps *require* > the CCRMA kernel -- it's just a huge help for getting any actual work > done.) That way, at least Fernando has a mechanism to spread the workload > for maintaining CCRMA among several assistants, and can spend most of his > time maintaining his own kernel as he sees fit. While that can work, I think this puts users in the worst place as a non-mainline kernel will inevitably lag in terms of security fixes, etc. And any kernel modules that are built in Extras won't be able to be used for that kernel. Jeremy
