Jeremy Katz wrote:
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.
Yeah, but it's not *your* work, it's someone else who *wants* to do it.
I think we should foster an empowering environment, and not take a
stance of "you can't do that!".
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.
Well, that should be their (the users') call to make, understanding the
risks/rewards for using bits from Alternatives (of CCRMA).
-- Rex
