On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 07:51:48AM -0500, Josh Boyer 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 ...) > > Fedora is _not_ RHEL. Period. If they happen to use the same packaging > scheme for modules, fine. That doesn't mean that Fedora cannot change > it's standards during a particular RHEL's lifetime. I agree that Fedora is not RHEL and vice versa. But once any idiom is adopted into one of the two the other will have a very hard time to get by, the bar is raised quite a bit. Whether we like it or not (BTW I like it) the two distributions are closely related and influence each-other. > Therefore, I see no urgency in getting this changed. If kmdls is truly > a better way, then it can be adapted when it has been fully discussed. GFS is in FC6, too. Only the life-span of FC6 is shorter. Furthermore yum developers want to know what scheme will need to be supported. As argued in the wiki yum support for the current scheme is an endless story, while the new proposed scheme already has it's fully working plugin submitted. Do you really want to see developers burn more time in a lost cause? We could be using that developer time elsewhere. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpJkmI2Z4laU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
