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

Re: Kernel Modules in Fedora -x



Hi,
On 8/4/07, David Woodhouse <dwmw2 infradead org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 21:49 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > But you seem to be really interested in this topic and you are in the
> > committee that is planing to kick kmod's, so it's IMHO your job to ask
> > the Board for its opinion as it allowed kmod#s again not that long ago.
>
> I thought the Board said FESCo would have the right to approve or deny
> kmod packages. So all FESCo needs to do is say 'no' to them all :)
>
> > > [...]
> > >>>> 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.
> > >
> > > Having just had a conversation with Davej on irc, I can offer these
> > > tidbits:
> > > [...]
> > > So it looks like Dave is absolutely willing to let out of tree kernel
> > > modules in, so long as they have a hope of going upstream, or a really
> > > really really good reason why we should continue carrying it forward.
>
> Which is hardly a surprising result, since we've been doing it that way
> for years.
>
> > Which leaves a lot of modules out. zaptel,
>
> $DEITY yes, we don't want to be shipping Zaptel until/unless they get
> off their wossname and make it mergable upstream. There's a _reason_
> we're shipping Callweaver (which dropped the crappy dependency on Zaptel
> just for _timing_, and switched to POSIX timers instead) and not
> Asterisk.
>
> >  spca5xx or gspca anyone?
>
> I read lkml and I've never heard of those. I assume therefore that they
> _deserved_ to be mentioned in the same sentence as zaptel?
   Ohh. some one want to more about spca5xx and gpsca kmods? Ok. Here
are some of links that you can refer.
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-July/msg01444.html
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-July/msg01449.html
and why I tried to add those modules is because I have personally
tested and used them. Also, If you are not knowing then spca5xx kmod
is a part of Ubuntu distribution. Check
http://packages.ubuntu.com/feisty/misc/spca5xx-source
and its help page is given at https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Spca5xx
 >
> > > He even spoke of perhaps a timeout,  [...]
> >
> > We talked about that before and people said "to dangerous, as people
> > will yell at us when module foo suddenly vanishes in Fedora (x+2) again.
>
> True. Which is why the 'almost upstream' criterion is useful. We've
> rarely had to carry new drivers like that for more than one release,
> have we?
>

Regards,
Parag.


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