On Fri, 2006-08-11 at 15:43 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > 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? umm - then we'll need both plugins and it will be near impossible to make sure they play nicely. moreover - if a package switches owners and one likes kmod while the previous one likes kmdl then we're kinda, umm, screwed. the packaging committee should make a choice, go with and then it is done. that's the whole point of the committee. -sv -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
