> Just FYI, kmod's got always low priority from FESCO. The usual > answer for kmods reviews are "why not kmod is added in upstream kernel > yet?" > I struggled a lot to get first spca5xx kmod in Fedora but failed as > no one dare to review it. Then after it got considered as unsuccessful > attempt, I tried on submitting gspca kmod. After much struggle I got > KMOD_APPROVED on gspca-kmod package review. But then no one dare to > review it even after I showed my willingness to maintain it for each > kernel release in rawhide and with such unfortunate happened things, I > decided to CLOSE my own package reviews for gspca kmod. > I feel really bad for that. I am sure many peoples like to have some > of the under development kmods in Fedora. I often used to get request > from peoples about what happened to webcam kmods like gspca I tried to > add in Fedora. > Today also I got query for available webcam drivers in Fedora and > RHEL, but unfortunately people now need to compromise on webcams for > available webcam kmods in kernel. There are few webcam kmods which > are, though under development but working well and their upstream is > prompt to release updates for newer kernels. These kmods supports most > of new webcams. > But still we are not having those kmods approved in Fedora atleast. Is this in need to be reviewed by the board or more waiting for a package review? I'd love to see gspca upstream, but also a kmod rpm would be superb. Also while kmods have many problems, I think we'll continue to see use cases for them, so getting through the pain of maintaining them does build up useful infrastructure. Last time I checked, building kmod rpms needed too many additional requirements, so I decided to stay at "make; make install" for each new kernel for my own machine. regards, Florian La Roche -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
