On Sun, 2008-03-30 at 03:51 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Mar 25, 2008, Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > (Note that Fedora 9 is already past feature freeze any way...) > > That means not adding new features. How about removing? > > > Now, seriously... > > How bad would it Fedora take it if I were to go with this kernel-libre > project, the way it is now, through the Fedora package submission > process? Badly. No alternative kernels. If you can't do it in the kernel package that already exists, then you'll have to do it outside of Fedora. > I'd very much like to be able to use Fedora CVS to maintain this > (although I do have permission from FSFLA to maintain it there > instead), and I'd very much like to use Fedora build machinery and > binary hosting, even if this kernel isn't actually included in > releases, even if it's excluded from rawhide. > > Does this sound like something that would be outright rejected, to the > point that it doesn't make sense for me to even try? Yes. > Or does it make sense to start the discussion in the context of an > official package submission? IMO, no. josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
