On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 03:10:09PM -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". Do Kernel Modules in Core make any sense? No - they belong in the kernel package. Do Kernel Modules in Extras make sense? Maybe. I'd *much* prefer to say No here, and tell the module developers / Extras maintainer to work with upstream to get it in. However, that takes time (as I learned first-hand getting the ppp_mppe module into the kernel and out of a 3rd party hosted site), during which time end users won't get the functionality at all, or must look elsewhere. The tradeoff to saying "Yes" here is that all Extras kernel module packagers then need to help triage and resolve kernel bugs. It's cleaner for the end users if we do this work. It's extra responsibility for the kernel module packagers, but that's only appropriate. This also helps us move away from the Core vs Extras contributors distinction, if we can get non-@xxxxxxxxxx people assisting with kernel bug triage and development. If FESCo agrees to include a particular module, then there needs to be enough of a developer/support cabal for it through the life of the release. Fire-and-forget kernel module packagers will suck the life out of this, and force the answer to "no". Do Kernel Modules in Fedora plus Other Free Stuff make sense? Yes, in support of the Other Free Stuff (thinking here about CCRMA and the like). I don't want to force people to diverge too far from the Fedora-provided packages in Core and Extras to enable novel functionality like this which may impact Core in ways Core doesn't want to go or isn't ready to go. Do Kernel Modules in $something-not-free make sense? Yes, and the FPB has no control over those anyhow. The common packaging guidelines go a ways towards helping this. I'll vote yes. -Matt _______________________________________________ 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
