On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 13:43 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote: > 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. > but a gpl kernel module won't taint. -sv _______________________________________________ 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
