----- Original Message ----- > 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. I think we can reject it out-of-hand if there's been no work on getting said drivers upstream so that they would be integrated (or integratable) into Fedora. -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
