Axel Thimm schrieb:
On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 10:38:46AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
There is exactly one (1) package in Fedora and lives only in FE5.
+2 more in cvs that are not build ATM (thinkpad-lkmod and lirc-kmod)
+7 under review
+6 in lvn
-67 in ATrpms
Looks like you're raising this to an ATrpms vs livna issue? I thought
we wanted to merge ...
I hope we can still merge.
This guerilla tactics are becoming ugly.
That's why I think it's time that spot as leader of this group IMHO
jumps in. Otherwise we waste a lot of time arguing without results.
When he showed he tends to a uname-r-in-version solution you seem to
have activated all your muscles against it even though you promised
otherwise before.
I activated all my muscles for a complete switch from the current kmod
standard to something else because
- the current kmod standard was developed in half a year with a lot of
work involved from me, scop, jeremy, warren, f13 and others. jcmaster
(and other people I never have heard of) invested a lot of time in it
for RHEL. Throwing that completely away would be painful, but I would do
that if there are good reasons for it. I can't see them.
Question to scop, jeremy, warren, f13, jcmaster: Do you see any reasons
why we should throw away everything?
- throwing it away this short before RHEL beta1 and FC6test3 is IMHO not
acceptable -- especially because we don't have many experiences with it
(well, scop, I and some others have experiences with the "uname -r"
scheme, but at least mine were not as good as yours).
Back to the uname-r-in-version thing: Well, I think the
uname-r-in-version solution is not the best solution. But as I said
earlier in this thread:
"0" (e.g. undecided) currently if we only work for Fedora here. But that
would mean that we change kmodtool to handle it as spot cuggested in the
wiki.
"-1" currently if we want the same stuff in RHEL and Fedora -- the
"uname -r" is not that important with the kabi stuff and the problem
should be fixed properly.
Note the word "currently" and "undecided".
You still have your chance to reject it in fesco.
I'm not doing the FESCo decisions alone.
CU
thl
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
