Hi, On 9/15/06, Jochen Schmitt <Jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 18:14:51 +0530, you wrote: > I don't understand why Fedora people don't want kernel module >package that do not satisfy >"A publishable explanation from the author(s) why the module is not >merged with the mainline kernel yet and when it's planed to get >merged. You of course can ask the author to explain it directly in the >bug report. " I'm not a specialist about kernel modules. But one problem of there are the potential necessary to rebuild such packages for each new kernel release.
And how it will be different than if same kernel module is inbuilt in upstream kernel releases? Its the Author who will be always releasing newer versions for his kernel modules whenever there are kernel API changes. So may i know what is the difference between a kernel module in upstream kernel which will be released with kernel along with its source code changes when some API changes in that release and external module that will be also updated for each new release? May be i am missing something to have complete idea about why should we don't have kernel module packages. can you tell me? May be i think this is the problem with Fedora kernels as we have always having a lot of patches along with any new Fedora kernel release and it may be difficult to maintain in that condition to make compatible any external module.
Such rebuild may work well, but you have the potential danger, that the API of the kernel may be changed in a way, that the module will not work with the new kernel release. That is the result of the 'We need no stable kernel API'-philosophy of the kernel hackers There are approaches to developement tools to determinate such changes to minimize the need of rebuilds, but I think the is not the best solution.
Regards, Parag. -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
