On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 16:23:36 -0400 Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 15:09:13 -0500 > Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I'm not particularly in favor of a timeout either. > > Well, what about a timeout once it starts failing to compile? Or a > timeout once the maintainer is no longer interested in maintaining it > (orphan a part of the kernel...) There is a difference in having an arbitrary timeout because something didn't get upstreamed and having a module be orphaned. If the maintainer is still fighting to get it upstream and it hasn't happened yet, I see no reason to arbitrarily tell them "too bad, you didn't meet the timeout." However, the more I think about this the more I'm of the opinion that they have no place in kmods or in the kernel proper. Maybe pointing people to DKMS is a sufficient solution. If users want these modules that bad, they'll be willing to install the toolchain to build them. Dunno, haven't really decided yet. josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
