On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 01:48:05PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 14:34 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > An argument against adopting kmdls presented by Thorsten Leemhuis is > > that > > > > * it's too late now to fix it, we should live on with kmod bugs for > > RHEL5's life-cycle (ending 2012 ...) > > > > * too many packages for kmod are written (but actually there is only one > > in Fedora Extras 5, the rest is pending or in other repos and if > > other repos count, then ATrpms has several dozens of kmdls :) > > I think this argument is invalid. We should ban _all_ module packages > from Core and Extras anyway. That's a valid viewpoint. Assuming Fedora Core/Extras indeed bans all external kernel module packages, does it have the authority/interest to maintain a kernel module packaging guide? If not who should? -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgp051Nf2cDmE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
