On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 09:15:38AM +0100, Andreas Bierfert wrote: > On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 15:35:28 -0500 > Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > All the more reason to not do external kmods as a part of "Fedora". > > If "Fedora" cares enough about a module that we want to ship it and make it > > officially available to our users, it needs to be in the kernel package, and > > DaveJ needs to approve that. Otherwise they should NOT go into Fedora _at_ > > _all_ as we can't reasonable deliver timely updates without breaking the > > repository. > > Maybe we should just follow a different approach for kmods then? Why not do > something like a module manager (I heard some other distros have that ;) )? > With it people could easily build their modules themselves but have them > integrated via rpm so their filesystems don't go into nirvana after a couple of > system upgrades. If you make it easy (and graphical) enough I suspect that > people would be ok with it for external module stuff. That would solve the > problems of repo inconsistency but still give users what they want... At FUDCon, several of us (Jeremy, Thorsten, Jon Masters, and I) discussed adding a clean method into /sbin/installkernel to allow tools like DKMS to hook at that point and rebuild kernel modules if necessary (and if possible). Right now the DKMS autoinstaller runs as a service at reboot time, which is really too late for some things. So, if you've got module source, and a compiler, and if the source builds and works for your new kernel version, you'll be ok. Lots of ifs, but better than absolutely nothing. -Matt _______________________________________________ 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
