On 29/05/15 14:54, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 8:40 AM, David Sommerseth <davids@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 28/05/15 17:45, Josh Boyer wrote: >>> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:26 AM, David Sommerseth <davids@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I've started poking into packaging the mhvtl project for Fedora and >>>> EPEL. This package also contains a kernel module, which normally works >>>> fine - until you hit Secure Boot. >>>> >>>> So I was wondering how to handle this the best way. AFAIK, there are >>>> currently no plans to get the mhvtl.ko kernel module into the upstream >>>> kernel. >>> >>> Where can I read more information on this project, and why that might be? >> >> Duh! I'm so into this I forget to add better project info ... >> >> <https://sites.google.com/site/linuxvtl2/> > > Sorry, I should have been more explicit in my question. I found the > site by googling of course, but I was curious if you had pointers to > reasoning/discussion around why the kernel module won't be pushed > upstream. I have asked the mhvtl developer about this, still awaiting an answer. I would generally prefer seeing it upstream kernel, but until then I'd like to have a solution in place as well. >>> It is worth noting that Fedora does not allow packages other than the >>> kernel to ship kernel modules. >> >> Oh, I was not aware of that. But compiling a kernel module "on-the-fly" >> is acceptable for Fedora? > > Kinda. Packages that do that exist. We know they exist. We assume > the people maintaining them are going to be polite and deal with > issues. Fair enough! -- kind regards, David Sommerseth -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
