Greetings. Some questions have come up in the recent FESCo (Fedora Extras Steering Comittee) meeting about criteria that should be used for approving kernel modules in extras. The current guidelines for kernel modules can be found at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/KernelModules Aside from technical guidelines there is: "Besides rules around the packaging there is one additional *before* you start packaging a kernel module for Fedora Extras: Open a Review bug in http://bugzilla.redhat.com and ask FESCo via fedora<AT>leemhuis<DOT>info for permission if this module is allowed for Extras. This requires that you give at least the following informations: Name of the package URL of the project and a tarball of the latest version License A publishable explanation from the author(s) why the module is not merged with the mainline kernel yet and when it's planed to get merged. You of course can ask the author to explain it directly in the bug report. FESCo will look at those informations on the next meeting (those are normally every thursday) and will vote if the kernel module is suitable for Fedora Extras. If not it will explain the reasons in the bug report for further discussion. For example ndiswrapper is not suitable for Fedora Extras -- yes, it is GPLed software, but it taints the kernel and most windows drivers won't work in the Fedora Kernel anyway due to 4K Stacks. Why all this? The Fedora Project wants to encourage driver developers to merge their sources in the kernel It easier for everyone if the modules are in the main kernel (even for the developers -- but they often don't know that yet) There is often a good reason why the kernel developers refuse to merge a driver. If it's not good enough for the kernel, why should it be good enough for Fedora? Most modules that are maintained independently of the kernel have licensing issues that also make it impossible to ship them in Fedora Extras." This came up when talking about the zaptel-kmod package: See: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177583#c41 See also the sysprof kernel module review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191745 Questions: - Should a kernel module where the upstream has no plans of merging with the upstream kernel be allowed in extras? (This means it could stay around in extras forever) - If upstream says they are going to try and merge their module, but never does (lack of time, technical issues, no real desire to, etc), should the module be removed after some time? - Should there be any other criteria? (renew approval every new release, only allow modules for 1 year and remove, etc) Any other thoughts on this issue? kevin
Attachment:
pgpJxUSglkw58.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
