On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 07:19:32AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > >> > I've had some reports recently that appeared to suggest that in F17, > >> > GFS2 was no longer being supported by the kernel. Having investigated > >> > this, it appears that the root cause is that the gfs2.ko module has been > >> > moved to a package called kernel-modules-extra (although the kernel RPM > >> > still contains the directory in which the gfs2 module sits, which is a > >> > bit odd - why package an empty directory?) > >> > > >> > Now, I'm wondering whether I should add a dependency on > >> > kernel-modules-extra in the gfs2-utils package? I'm leaning towards saying that would be the right thing to do. > "Things that are not widely used in a typical Fedora setup, or things > that we might disable entirely but are moving to see if there are users > that notice." > > GFS2 falls into the first set, not the second. For exactly this reason. Your comment about DLM is helpful, though I seem to recall there may have been another reason we couldn't move that to -extras at the time it was implemented. (Was that non-modular for a while maybe?). > We can move it back if needs be. Honestly, we might wind up just > disabling the rest of the stuff contained in there and dropping the > sub-package entirely. We're still kind of undecided on whether it's > worth doing at all. Thus far there have been 3 requests to move a > module back. The rest seem to be unnoticed. I've added an item to discuss this on the agenda for this weeks Fedora kernel meeting[*] for anyone interested. Dave [*] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting_channel -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
