On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 22:55 +0800, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 15:01 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > I'd like to just do a brief poll here just to see how many are yay or > > nay for kmods. And I'm not talking about their current implementation > > or the other various ways that the idea can be accomplished, but > > rather on the idea of having kernel modules as separate packages in > > general. > > Absolutely not, ever. > > > If you're against the general idea and want to follow up with reasons > > why that's fine. > > If it's good enough for Fedora to ship and support, we can put it in the > main kernel package. Besides; if it's good enough for Fedora to ship and Which is something I suggested later in this thread. > And if it isn't good enough for upstream to ship and support, why in > $DEITY's name would we want to ship it, again? *cough* squashfs *cough cough* wireless-dev *cough* CFS *cough hack* xen *cough* Ok, out of those really only squashfs and xen aren't immediately headed towards some kind of upstream inclusion. josh _______________________________________________ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
