On Saturday 19 August 2006 8:11 am, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Hi all! > > I was one of the driving forces behind "kernel modules in Extras" so I > think I should give my 2 cent to this thread. > > Josh Boyer schrieb: > > There have been a couple discussions about kmod packages that have > > popped up on fedora-extras and fedora-devel. While they started as > > specific discussions about particular modules or how modules are > > packaged, in both threads there have been questions as to whether or not > > these kinds of packages should even be in Extras and Core. > > > > I'd like the board to review this soon. > > +1 +1 also > > Given that there is an ongoing > > discussion about how to package such things, it would be good to get a > > decision on their feasibility as packages to begin with. > > - Proceed with the current layout -- FESCo has to allow modules and > modules that have no plans to get upstram get rejected. I see another option a kernel module repo that is disabbled by default but the config is shipped. users wanting the kernel modules then need to enable the repo manually. in the documentation we make it 100% clear that by enabling the repo the core kernel developers will not support them. We still push to get the modules upstream but as long as someone wants to maintain the module it could live there for an extended period of time. That would be useful where in the instance of the zaptel module they have no intention to get the module upstream. though we could also try and have someone submit the module for inclusion in Linus's tree. -- Dennis Gilmore, RHCE Proud Australian _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly