2006/2/23, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > Am Donnerstag, den 23.02.2006, 18:23 +0100 schrieb Rudolf Kastl: > > 2006/2/22, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > Am Mittwoch, den 22.02.2006, 14:56 -0500 schrieb Eric Mesa: > > > > well id be happy if just planetccrma would be slowly merged into > > extras... the main blocker seems to be the realtime kernel module as > > far as i can see. > > Well, we had a discussion about "kernels in Fedora Extras" on this list > some months ago. I don't think that we should provide them there. But > that's debatable. And even if we agree not to ship them: planetccrma > could still ship the kernels and we could merge everything else into > extras if possible. the question is if its really necassery to build a seperate kernel instead of building missing modules vs the current one. and if thats necassery one would have to deeply dig into it why and see if theres a possibility to work around that. i am not sure in that special case myself. Then again it might be helpful probably to have a 3rd party repo just doing kernel modules that are out of the tree etc. theres various functionality i cant seem to get with the current standard upstream kernel. e.g. alsa bluetooth module for pairing and using my bluetooth headset. maybe theres anothe r way to achieve that though i yet still have to find it.. another deal is visdn. i need a proper isdn stack beeing able to make bri cards working in te and nt mode since the current isdn stack is incomplete and broken for my purposes. I do also agree that this stuff has to be fixed upstream i just dont see it happen and actually i dont want to wait another few years to have hardware that could be working having not working at all for the purposes i need it. > > > actually from the other repos only a few packages are missing that > > could be contributed to extras and youd be nearly there. besides some > > kernel modules atrpms provides e.g. > > Well, the confusion for the user remains as long as freshrpms, atrpms > rpmforge and livna exist in their current state. I've seen multiple > users that didn't know that repo mixing can result in "interesting > results". Most users hit those sooner or later and ran away screaming to > Ubuntu or Suse. i agree i just dont see a way to prevent that besides providing the same functionality with a working set of repos. So basically if the stuff would be in extras people wouldnt add yet another repo just for the fun of it if it wouldnt be necassery. one has to question why the repos exist and what they provide to the user to make em enable them. sure for the reknown repos there are just a big number of fans that "traditionally" enable them because they have had good experiences with it in the past and their stuff working thats something no one will be able to prevent. regards, Rudolf Kastl > > CU > thl > -- > Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > -- > fedora-devel-list mailing list > fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list > -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
