On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 14:48 -0400, Christopher Blizzard wrote: > Jeremy Katz wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 23:28 +0530, Rahul wrote: > >> So since we decided to allow kernel modules in Fedora Extras now, what > >> about alternative kernels? > >> > >> The immediate need for this is a kernel with Ingo's RT patch set > >> (http://people.redhat.com/mingo/realtime-preempt/) that is used by > >> Planet CCRMA that we are trying to integrate into Fedora. > >> > >> We already discussed this before at > >> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2006-May/msg00055.html. > >> A quick decision now. Yes/no? > > > > I'd say no > > This is that classic problem that it's hard for us to manage > 1 of > anything in our trees. I suspect (but correct me if I'm wrong) that > Jeremy is actually concerned about the lack of focus on the mainline > kernel, or wanting to get the RT patches upstream. If we allow arbitrary kernels that are maintained in Extras, how do we make sure that there's actually a consistent set of features provided? And that's ignoring the questions of currency and handling of security errata, which is already hard enough. Additionally, more kernels ==> more pain for kernel module packagers. Now they need to know about even _more_ variants and be able to build against them. These are the things that concern me a lot about more kernels. Lack of focus on the mainline kernel and wanting to focus on getting the patches upstream is more of a secondary concern :) Jeremy _______________________________________________ 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
