[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Kernel Modules in Fedora -x



On 03.08.2007 19:52, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:47:01 +0200
> Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora leemhuis info> wrote:
> 
>> Not all. And that's part of the reason why there was a certain
>> interest from some people inside Red Hat to have a packaging standard
>> tested and used in Fedora that can get reused for RHEL (which is the
>> case). Well, some Red Hat people kick kernel modules packages out of
>> Fedora now, so I expect you guys can fight that out own your own
>> inside Red Hat.
> I never understood why we did out of spec modules in RHEL.  It's just
> plain stupid, and it didn't work worth a damn.  One "bright" idea was
> to let Fedora come up with a way to make it better.  Well I have a way,
> and it's you don't do it.  If it hurts when you poke yourself in the
> eye, no amount of finger protection is going to help.  You've got to
> stop poking yourself in the eye.

There are lot's of cases and situations in the world where kernel-module
packages are needed -- updated or new open-source drivers for testing
are a valid area IMHO. I think we should not ignore those and other
cases completely.

But well, your statement IMHO shows nicely how Fedora sometimes acts.
For heavens sake we at least got firefox.i386 due to the multilib mess
(and firefox-32 thx to warren) -- otherwise we'd still would leave
people out in the cold just do encourage 3rd-party plugin-writers to
port their stuff to x86_64. Side not one the current "thinking about the
Fedora brand" thread on FAB-list: maybe we should just say "Fedora only
gives you what it thinks is good for you, even if it creates trouble and
headaches for you".

>> I'm just wondering in general about the current happenings -- some
>> months ago the Board issued a statement to allow kmods but now a new
>> FESCo shoots it down again. Well, not my business as well.
> We're not saying no to non-upstream kernel modules, which is at the
> heart of what the board wants (at least from my understanding of the
> topic).  All we're doing is trying to redefine the delivery mechanism
> so that it is easier for all parties involved.

And davej indicated that he does not want more out-of-kernel modules.

That fact and the "at least from my understanding of the topic" IMHO
makes it worth to ask the Board for its opinion.

CU
knurd


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]