On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:47:46 -0500 Jeremy Katz <katzj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2007-11-19 at 20:46 +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote: > > >From my POV in this particular case, I'd be inclined to let em8300 > > >(the > > non-kmod package) stay in Fedora because of the above, and also > > because it's actually possible that the em8300 modules get beaten > > into a shape where they can be included in upstream or Fedora > > kernels by F9 or F10 time. > > This sounds very reasonable to me, FWIW. > > Jeremy > Me too. As long as it won't lead to broken deps, I'm OK with it. -- 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
