On Sa September 8 2007, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 11:24 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > dwmw2's proposal afaics mainly reads as "no > > separately packaged *kernel-modules* (in source or binary form) in > > Fedora at all"; but he uses the term "kmods" here and there (and kmod > Indeed it was not the intention -- I used the term 'kmod' to refer to a > generic evil. I have clarified the wording now. > > Not only do I think we shouldn't ship modules in binary form, I think we > shouldn't be shipping them in source form as dkms payload either. There are some open questions to how to get a new kernel module into Fedora, once this proposal is accepted. Who will decide whether a new kernel module will be accepted as a patch for the kernel rpm? Will there be a guideline on how to add a kernel module as a patch to the kernel rpm? How will proposed kernel modules be reviewed / decided, whether or not it is good enough to be included in the kernel rpm? Regards, Till
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
