Re: [RFC] non-KVM graphics/IO drivers in our default install media

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



Alberto Ruiz (aruiz@xxxxxxxxxx) said: 
> The problem here is that they don't keep up with Fedora Workstation
> kernels so the user always ends up having to install all the build
> dependencies and run their clumsy .run script and wait for everything to
> be built, installed and then restart the vm. Which is a pretty terrible
> experience.
> 
> As per the API/ABI stability, that shouldn't be an issue as long as we
> provide it ourselves right?

(Intentionally ignoring the general question about out-of-tree modules to
address this specific point; I agree with Josh on that issue in general.)

Not really - given that the ABI required at any point in time is tied to
VirtualBox's schedule, not Fedora's.

At any point, upstream VBox can put out a new release requiring a new ABI,
which would mean that:

a) any user that upgrades VBox would be broken until Fedora puts out an
  update for all supported releases to match
b) any user that hasn't upgraded VBox but upgrades Fedora with the new
  modules from a) would be broken until they upgrade VBox

If you have two tightly-coupled components of a shifting ABI, the best
solution will alway be for users to get both components from the same place,
not to split them across distribution channels; since we obviously can't
ship the VirtualBox app, that means the best way to ensure existing vbox
users is to have them get the modules from vbox.  Shipping the vbox modules
in Fedora would be optimizing the onboarding experience for some vbox users
at the expense of the ongoing user experience of using vbox.

It's a similar situation for why Firefox just started bundling xulrunner.

Bill



> 
> I wasn't aware of the out-of-tree modules, is there somewhere I can read
> about the rationale behind this policy?
> 
> > VMWare and Microsoft actually did things properly for their
> > hypervisors and got the kernel drivers in the upstream kernel.org
> > tree.  I believe we already enable them in the Fedora kernels.
> 
> Yup, so we're fine for VMWare Fusion/Workstation, and hyper-v doesn't
> bother me too much from a Workstation POV as it's only available on
> Windows Server. 
> 
> > josh
> 
> -- 
> Greetings,
> Alberto Ruiz
> Engineering Manager - Desktop Applications Team
> Red Hat, Inc.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> desktop mailing list
> desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
-- 
desktop mailing list
desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora KDE]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Docs]     [Fedora Config]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Red Hat 9]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux