+1 to Matt's analysis here, fwiw. Although I'm guessing you're already voting on it as I type this. :) --g ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors ------------------------------------------------------------- On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Matt Domsch wrote: > 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 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
