On Fri, 2006-08-11 at 12:58 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > d) support for coinstallation of kmdls should be pushed into FC6 asap > (working plugin has already been submitted here and tested be > ATrpms users). Requires a positive vote on a-c) Rather than vote on these issues as Axel suggests (which we can certainly do), I think that perhaps we should look at a different approach: Just throwing it out here, but I don't really see consensus on this issue. People either like kmod or kmdl, and I think there are definite pros/cons to each approach. My instinct is that if we vote on Axel's items, they will not pass. And I don't think it is because the kmdl standard is broken or outright wrong, I think much of it is due to the fact that so much pain and effort went into making the kmod standard (which works for the majority of cases) that people are honestly unwilling to start over. So, here's the heretical proposition: How about we permit either kmod OR kmdl as an acceptable standard? E.g. Document both, and let the packager choose? I see kernel module packaging as one of the last barriers to bringing in contributions from open source, unencumbered 3rd party repo packages. Given the near religious nature of this debate, maybe a little flexibility (not infinite flexibility) is merited here for the greater good? Thoughts? ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Technical Team Lead || GPG ID: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my! -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
