On 19.02.2009 14:38, seth vidal wrote:
On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 06:38 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Colin Walters wrote:
I forgot to point out in an earlier message that there is precedent
for setting up barriers for low-level software, namely the Fedora 3rd
party kernel driver policy:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/KernelDriverPolicy
I actually still don't see why we're banning separate kernel module packages
even if they're under a GPLv2-compatible license. Useful stuff like kqemu
with no license or patent issues is being forced into RPM Fusion purely
because of the combination of the above policy and the ban on
separately-packaged kernel modules. This also causes problems with getting
the modules out at the same time as the new kernel which would just not
happen if they were in Fedora and got pushed out with new kernels in
grouped updates. The #1 rationale for banning kernel modules entirely
was "FESCo was rejecting most requests anyway, so it won't change much",
but the option of changing that fact, or even getting rid of the FESCo
approval requirement entirely, never even got considered.
I think they're banned b/c a kernel module package means we're not doing
the proper job of getting the module in upstream.
And because maintaining kernel modules we want to ship(¹) as patch
within the regular Fedora kernel SRPM is likely easier and better for
everyone (²).
CU
knurd
(¹) there are a lot external GPLed modules we don't want to ship for
various reasons
(²) that's the long story short and without all those boring details;
and of course having modules upstream is the best for everyone
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
