On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 16:54:22 +0200, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Chris Adams wrote: > > Why don't you give the kernel maintainers the same courtesy? > > Because LZMA SquashFS is a feature which affects the live images, and almost > exclusively the live images, and as such the SIGs controlling the live > images should be the ones making the decision. This means the 4 desktop > SIGs. (And FWIW, GNOME really needs a community-oriented SIG instead of the > current "RH Desktop Team == Fedora GNOME maintainers" practice.) In this case I think waiting is better, even though I proposed the feature. I was planning on requesting a back port if a patch for it gets accepted for 2.6.36, but it seems unlikely to happen as the merge window will be closing shortly. The issue is that if we apply the patch that was submitted for an earlier kernel (2.6.33 I think), and it had a problem due to some other change in the kernel, we don't have a practical way to support it. (While Lougher was VERY helpful recently with tracking down a squashfs-tools bug, we can't always count on having a few days of his time to provide us with support.) I really think the benefits and costs need to be looked at on a case by case basis and the package maintainers should be the ones making the call. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
