On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 17:17 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > I tend to say that approach is fine for you, Hans and some other > developers that are familiar with kernel-coding as those people have > shown to be able to get code upstream and know how to work with > upstream. Yes, although I'd phrase it as "that approach is fine for anyone who we'd actually want maintaining kernel code with the 'Fedora' name on it". > But the code in question IMHO should show potential for a > nearby upstream merge before it's being added. Absolutely. > But users and packagers want some modules that do not head upstream in > the near future -- let's take the lirc kernel-modules as example, > where the lirc-upstream afaik is not actively working on getting the > code into linus kernel. Nobody else is doing that either. I'd prefer > to not have stuff like that in fedora's kernel rpm, as that could soon > and in a major maintenance nightmare, which we all want to avoid > afaics. It doesn't become any _less_ of a nightmare just because you ship it separately. If we don't want it Fedora's kernel RPM, then we don't want it in Fedora at all. -- dwmw2 _______________________________________________ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
