Dave Jones wrote:
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 02:06:39PM -0500, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote:
> To the best of my knowledge, the problem you have with kmods/alternate
> kernels is that people complain when they break, and they fill bugzilla
> with bugs that don't make sense -- because people don't understand that
> they're running funky kernels.
>
> Right? Are there any other reasons not to package these alternate
> kernels?
>
> Because that's a valid reason. But it also gives us something to shoot
> for: better reporting tools.
The bugzilla issue is the #1 reason.
I don't want to do another round-trip in bugzilla where I have to ask..
"Now try and repeat this issue without kmod-blah loaded".
Personally, I consider this more of a bug triaging failure. kernel bugs
should only be accepted/allowed *only* if from verifiably taint-free
kernels. Everything else -> closed/INVALID.
-- Rex
_______________________________________________
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
