Dnia 15-08-2006, wto o godzinie 09:27 -0400, Jesse Keating napisał(a): > (...) all kinds of weird hacks to how they are (...) > Arguing over which ugly ass hack to apply to be able to package kernel modules > is a bikeshed argument. Isn't the "kmdls" system meant to be the cure to all of this? Is it even a hack? I don't even think the package names are truly ugly. Fedora is meant to be a testbed of open source technology, right? If so, what's wrong with having separate kernel modules available for me to test and search for bugs? I don't want to patch and compile the kernel only to see if some module works for me. If it's an incomplete device driver, it still can work on my hardware or I can provide some feedback about the features not working. Fedora is packaging lots of broken software which people still want to use (and I'm writing this in Evolution!). I agree that it's better to make kernel package maintainers to maintain all of patches and additional modules, but they don't have the manpower to do it and support it (not to mention the ones they can't put there, but other repo can). People are going to make kernel module rpms anyhow. Forcing them to use flawed design that's hard to use, maintain, keep in sync with kernel updates and impossible to boot older kernels is worse than pushing Xorg 7.1 for FC5 which we're not doing because... we recognize the need for people to use off-tree kernel modules :) The Board has spoken - using external kernel modules is a valid user choice and it's important to make it easier for the users. That's my understanding of The Board's decision. So, kmdls are the next step. Lam
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: To jest =?UTF-8?Q?cz=C4=99=C5=9B=C4=87?= listu podpisana cyfrowo
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
