On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 03:06:07PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 00:33 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > > > On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 12:35 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > >> I don't think that anyone has said that you can't make a special > > >> spin with this kernel in it. > > > > > > For what it is worth, I actually am saying that such a spin can't be > > > called Fedora, under the existing trademark guidelines, since I am > > > opposed to any "alternative kernel" packages in the Fedora repository. > > > > Well, there is still something called kernel-xen. > > Yes, but it isn't a separate package, it is built off the kernel SRPM. > If "kernel-libre" was generated from the kernel SRPM like "kernel-xen" > is, I would be ok with it, but it doesn't seem like that is a feasible > option, since the firmware would still be in the kernel SRPM. It was a signel SRPM back in FC6 days, but it since split because it could not keep pace with LKML releases. With F9 we're back in sync version wise and come F10 we hope to be merged back into one SRPM, and indeed one binary RPM too - it will detect bare metal vs Xen at boot time. Dan. -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, Boston -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :| -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
