On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 04:12:06PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > > David Woodhouse schrieb: > >On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 09:50 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > >>Given that we don't want it on Core or Extras, I'm pretty happy to > >>let random 3rd party packager do whatever they want for packaging > >>modules. I'm not interested in dictating how they should handle > >>this ugly hack. > >> > >>Your example about ntfs is not usable w/out the userland > >>(ntfsprogs), which nobody wants to touch due to legal reasons, and > >>would be obsoleted by FUSE anyway where the most recent ntfs > >>support is done entirely in userspace. > >> > >>There are many more things the packaging committee can spend time > >>worrying about. Packaging of kernel modules isn't one of them > >>IMHO. > > > >Yeah, that's a fair point. However, it would be useful if those who > >_do_ care about kernel module packages would come to an agreement > >about how it should be done, and that can be documented somewhere > >central to Fedora -- like on the Fedora wiki. > > > >We can modify our kernel RPM and yum if appropriate in order to > >support that agreed method. > > That already happend -- FESCo worked out and agreed on a propsoal last > winter http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/KernelModules > > It's working fine. No, it's not, proven in debates on fedora-packaging and here http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/AxelThimm/kmdls The proposal you worked out is leading to broken rpm and yum support. That's not working fine. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpSYP5J1T10M.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
