On Wednesday 07 February 2007 03:15, Andreas Bierfert wrote: > 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... And when they don't rebuild cleanly? Then what? The user is left holding the bag of a broken system should they ever reboot to that new kernel. I am entirely unconvinced that out of tree kernel modules adds any value over the long run. It may work for a kernel or two, but it will lag, it will break, and somebody will get blamed for it, more often than not, it will be us for moving the kernel too fast, or not caring enough about external modules to hold back updates, or, or, or... Out of tree modules _will_ lead to poor user experiences and I do _not_ want the Fedora name attached to _any_ of them. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora
Attachment:
pgpl0TjHeaBFN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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
