On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 10:41:28AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > Not that my opinion matters much, but I think this is an interesting > > mind shift. The end result is the same as today, just extra files in > > /lib/modules/`uname -r`, right? > > Actually, I was hoping some other kernel maintainers would chip in so > your opinion does matter. I really don't want to change this in Fedora > to only have it reverted in a future RHEL. Maybe Jarod or Rafael would > be kind enough to review as well... Off the top of my head, if it works out for Fedora, I currently can't see a reason RHEL would revert it. But that depends on what quirks falls out. :-) > > And yes, your summary is correct. Thanks! Cheers, Don > > > This is one of those ideas, I am curious to see how it plays out. It can > > turn into nothing or allow us to do more interesting things from a package > > maintaince or sysadmin perspective. > > > > The only problem is how does one go about implementing ideas like this, > > aside from creating their own distro? > > > > If all we are doing is adding new files to /lib/modules, then it is low > > risk, I would think. But I would probably keep this in rawhide somehow (if > > at all possible). > > If we apply it, it would start in rawhide and work its way through the > normal Fedora release process. So at this point the earliest release it > would land in would be Fedora 23. The backwards compatibility Harald > noted was for ease of use in testing rawhide kernels on older userspace. > > > Then again I like some of the ideas of the stateless model as it makes > > updating machines (servers big and small) easier. I almost think Docker > > but with distros instead of apps. > > > > Just my 2cents. > > Thanks. > > josh _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
