On Sat, 2005-01-08 at 10:49 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 13:07:42 +0100, Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I do wonder though why they aren't just patched into the regular kernel > > rpm... Would make a lot more sense for something provided in the core > > distro.... > > I disagree. I think having at least one stand alone kernel-module > package in Core that serves as an example of how to package > stand-alone modules serves a significant purpose. I don't see why Extras can't do this > I also find the idea of putting every non-standard module for Core > that is not in the upstream kernel inside the kernel package contrary > to the 'upstream upstream upstream' mantra fedora project seems to > project. I can understand patching in functionality that has to be > patched in because it can't be modularized. But for downstream module > additions inside Core, why shouldn't they be packaged as standalone? Because it's a major logistical pain when doing an security erratum, especially when it's an urgent one.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
