On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? Because they might break on kernel updates, needs to be rebuild everytime and in some cases require patches to work. So we might get in a situation: pushing a kernel update will cause broken deps for users of kmod-foo -> preventing them from installing updates -> security risk. (outdated packages) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
