Jeremy Katz wrote:
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?
We dont need to allow arbitrary kernels. Can we allow Planet CCRMA
kernel or the OLPC kernel?
And that's ignoring the questions of currency and handling of security
errata, which is already hard enough.
Yes. A good maintainer would be required. Fortunately, in both these
case we have one. RT patch set is being pushed very heavily upstream by
Ingo and is expected to take a few revisions.
Rahul
_______________________________________________
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
