On Fri, 29 May 2009, Richard W.M. Jones 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?
1. out-of-tree kernel modules should not be encouraged - if it can't be in
the upstream kernel then why are we including it in fedora?
2. the behavior for multiply-installed kernels and kernel modules with
updates is not-wonderful
3. kernels being released into a repo and the kernel-modules not being
caught up plays hell w/proper updates
-sv
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
