On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 09:21 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > Briefly, 1) we aren't staffed for it, 2) it encourages crappy behavior > on the part of the module authors by providing disincentive to getting > it upstream, 3) it's a maintenance hassle, 4) we typically already > have alternatives (this is particularly true in the case of virt), 5) > it's yet another entry in an already rapidly expanding test matrix > that has to be checked off (which goes back to item 1), etc etc. > > I consider myself to be fairly open to many things. Carrying > virtualbox modules out-of-tree when the authors refuse to even submit > them upstream for review and have no intention of ever doing so is not > one of those things. This is one of the few items where I simply say > no. Do I sense a possible conflict of interest here ? I think Alberto's argument that including such drivers will make it a lot easier to try the workstation on popular virtualization solutions carries some weight and deserves to be discussed, instead of rejected out-of-hand. -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
