On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 03:33:37PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Josh Boyer wrote: > > Or perhaps a future FESCo will revist kmods. > > FWIW, I'd certainly vote for a proposal to allow kmods if I get into FESCo > and may even bring such a proposal in front of the new FESCo (though IMHO > it should not be the old regime with explicit FESCo approval for each, that > didn't make any sense, instead there should be no restrictions other than a > license compatible with that of the kernel, and of course the restrictions > applying to all packages). Could someone dispassionately summarise the reasons why kmods were rejected in the first place? I assume the reason was the overhead of maintaining and updating out-of-tree kernel patches? Rich. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
