Re: Proposal to add build of kernel-backports package to kernel.spec

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 16:01 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 03:55:41PM -0400, Andy Gospodarek wrote:

> The reason for naming putting it somewhere other than updates (packaged
> external modules) or extras (locally-built external modules) was
> to indicate that these modules were something other than the other
> categories.  That still seems reasonable to me.

I like that. If you're going to ship alternative much newer options,
don't put them in "updates" (intended for the local admin), and we have
generally used "extra" for packaged drivers. I favor the "backports"
directory. New directories are cheap, and searching them is just a
trivial config file entry...then users can always get a choice about
using a backport. In fact, they can be given a drop-in config file that
will change the load order on a per-module basis if they need to replace
the standard driver with the compat-wireless option.

Jon.


_______________________________________________
kernel mailing list
kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel


[Index of Archives]     [Fedora General Discussion]     [Older Fedora Users Archive]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Mentors]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Coolkey]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [USB]     [Asterisk PBX]

  Powered by Linux