On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 21:49 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > But you seem to be really interested in this topic and you are in the > committee that is planing to kick kmod's, so it's IMHO your job to ask > the Board for its opinion as it allowed kmod#s again not that long ago. I thought the Board said FESCo would have the right to approve or deny kmod packages. So all FESCo needs to do is say 'no' to them all :) > > [...] > >>>> 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. > >> And davej indicated that he does not want more out-of-kernel modules. > >> That fact and the "at least from my understanding of the topic" IMHO > >> makes it worth to ask the Board for its opinion. > > > > Having just had a conversation with Davej on irc, I can offer these > > tidbits: > > [...] > > So it looks like Dave is absolutely willing to let out of tree kernel > > modules in, so long as they have a hope of going upstream, or a really > > really really good reason why we should continue carrying it forward. Which is hardly a surprising result, since we've been doing it that way for years. > Which leaves a lot of modules out. zaptel, $DEITY yes, we don't want to be shipping Zaptel until/unless they get off their wossname and make it mergable upstream. There's a _reason_ we're shipping Callweaver (which dropped the crappy dependency on Zaptel just for _timing_, and switched to POSIX timers instead) and not Asterisk. > spca5xx or gspca anyone? I read lkml and I've never heard of those. I assume therefore that they _deserved_ to be mentioned in the same sentence as zaptel? > > He even spoke of perhaps a timeout, [...] > > We talked about that before and people said "to dangerous, as people > will yell at us when module foo suddenly vanishes in Fedora (x+2) again. True. Which is why the 'almost upstream' criterion is useful. We've rarely had to carry new drivers like that for more than one release, have we? -- dwmw2 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
