On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 15:10 -0400, Max Spevack wrote: > On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 09:32 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > >> - kernel modules outside of the kernel package in Fedora. Vote yes or no > >> so we can move on. > > > > This one has been asked about on the list about 4 times now. Would be > > very good to get an answer. > > The prevailing sentiment is that the engineers most directly impacted by > the decision are not in favor of kernel modules, and I think we need to > trust the technical expertise of the people who will be doing the work. > > Therefore, if I had to lay down an opinion, I would say that if Dave Jones > (et al) are opposed to kernel modules, then we need to say no. > > Additionally, if there is a belief that kernel modules would be a Good > Thing but we are forced to say no for various reasons (like bug triage as > an example) then we need to identify those reasons and act to resolve > them, so that we can revisit the issue at a later date, with the answer > being "no" until we are ready for it to be "yes". > > Does that make sense? I'm sure someone out there things I'm wrong. Tell > me why, and let's put this issue to bed. I think the prevailing sentiment from FESCo would be that kmods should be allowed in some way. The meeting logs with the most relevant comments are here: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20060824 The discussion on kmods starts at (10:19:07). Arguments against kmods: * It makes the job of diagnosing kernel bugs harder as there could be extra kmods on top of a stock fedora kernel. * kmods and kernels could go out of sync. Arguments for kmods: * It makes the job of the end-user easier because they need the functionality anyway and will get it from another source if necessary. * It makes the job of the kernel developers easier because they at least know the end-user is using a kmod from fedora-extras (and can ask: "if you rpm -qa |grep kmod does that turn up anything?" whereas a from source kmod would not leave that evidence.) * Fedora is a home for all open source software. Open source kmods are part of that definition. Possible restrictions on kmods: * Statement from upstream about their plans for merging it into the mainstream kernel with evaluation and approval by FESCo. (current process) * Separate but official Fedora repository (proposed by dgilmore) [Note: livna does not satisfy this as 1) livna does not have a config shipped with the OS, 2) our current impression is we can't inform people that livna hosts kmods because of other, legal issues.] * Time limit on kmods to be merged into the mainline kernel or they are removed from the repository (proposed by thl but rejected in the initial kmod proposal as it is bad for end-users) I'm for letting kmods into FE in some form. It will help end-users who have hardware that can benefit from a not-yet-merged driver. We don't have the excuse of it being proprietary software that we can't fix ourselves, can't look at the code to determine what's wrong, or can't get other people in the community to help us deal with. We may need to have restrictions to help the kernel packagers separate issues with the mainline kernel and the kmods but failing to find some solution to allow kmods is a failure on our part to provide an open source solution o our user's needs. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ 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
