On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:47:01 +0200 Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Not all. And that's part of the reason why there was a certain > interest from some people inside Red Hat to have a packaging standard > tested and used in Fedora that can get reused for RHEL (which is the > case). Well, some Red Hat people kick kernel modules packages out of > Fedora now, so I expect you guys can fight that out own your own > inside Red Hat. I never understood why we did out of spec modules in RHEL. It's just plain stupid, and it didn't work worth a damn. One "bright" idea was to let Fedora come up with a way to make it better. Well I have a way, and it's you don't do it. If it hurts when you poke yourself in the eye, no amount of finger protection is going to help. You've got to stop poking yourself in the eye. > > I'm just wondering in general about the current happenings -- some > months ago the Board issued a statement to allow kmods but now a new > FESCo shoots it down again. Well, not my business as well. We're not saying no to non-upstream kernel modules, which is at the heart of what the board wants (at least from my understanding of the topic). All we're doing is trying to redefine the delivery mechanism so that it is easier for all parties involved. Currently, FESCo itself has to approve any and all kmod packages, yet the kernel team is allowed to put whatever they want into the kernel rpm whether it is upstream or not. To me it makes sense to grant the kernel team the same right they have now, over all kernel modules. That would leave us with A) still the ability to ship out of upstream kernel modules, and B) an approval process for what is acceptable in this nature to have in Fedora. As a bonus we make it far more convenient to produce and consume these things. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
