On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 02:18:27PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 02:10:21PM -0500, Andy Gospodarek wrote: > > > > I think that fix is simple -- I don't think ssb should have been in > > > > that list in the first place. > > > > > > SSB was something we marked as 'why is this enabled at all??', so we > > > went with the 'safe' route of moving it first. > > > > > > > The ssb module is needed for b44 (wired) and b43 (wireless) drivers to > > function properly. That needs to get added back. > > Erm, ok. Except John said he turned it off in whatever he was working > on, so... I guess? :) I fixed it in git. > > As an aside, this is also why I have a line in the TODO file to tie the > list into Kconfig instead of a manually generated list. That way we > don't miss stuff like this. > Sounds good. > > > > So that brings me to the first big concern... Should we have _any_ > > > > hardware enablement included in the modules-extra package? If so, > > > > what is the cut-off? Do we really want to diminish our out-of-the-box > > > > hardware support for whatever benefit modules-extra provides? > > > > Is there SMOLT data or something similar to justify the list of > > > > modules being moved? > > > > > > Nope, no smolt data. > > > > > > > That is a bit troubling. I definitely want as much hardware support as > > possible to be available in Fedora. I am particularly focused on > > networking, so hopefully we do not move any reasonable wires or wireless > > drivers out (which is essentially what happened when ssb was moved out). > > We pretty much left the network _hardware_ drivers alone. The ssb thing > was unintentional. > Understood. I never thought it was intentional. _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
