On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 13:20 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > Darko Ilic wrote: > > > I wanted to ask what are the opinions on the subject, and is there any chance > > for SquashFS to make it's way into Fedora kernel by FC5? I`ve heard it was > > submitted to LKML recently and there was some discussions surrounding that > > and that it is a likely candidate for the upstream kernel. > > If it makes it upstream, then most likely, yes. I'd like to see a quality Fedora LiveCD. At my day job we're evaluating livecds for kiosks, recovery, and lab installs. What has struck me in recent days is that they're _all_ Debian based. If we want this to change, we need to create liveCDs that squashfs and unionfs are both kernel modules that are pretty standard fare in the liveCD world but are not part of the mainline kernel. We need to include them in Fedora in order to advance our reputation in the liveCD arena. There are three alternatives here. 1) We don't care about LiveCDs. If you want to make a serious LiveCD based on Fedora, you have to fork and maintain some packages outside of the Fedora arena. 2) We get these integrated into Core despite the fact that they aren't upstream [Example: GFS] 3) We integrate these modules in Extras. Is this important enough to Red Hat that Core manpower can be expended to make this happen? Or can we finally muster the will to package kernel modules for Extras _knowing_ that the policies and proceedures we set out in the first cut will need to be revised, possibly with a great deal of pain? Sorry for the emotion but kernel modules are currently stuck in a very undesirable limbo that's not doing Fedora as a whole any good. -Toshio PS - I discovered that work has one old Puppy Linux disk so that's one non-Debian distro... It's not Fedora-based, though.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
