[fab] Re: Alternatives

[Rex Dieter]

Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> /me is late in the discussion -- and it seems everything important is
> already said. 
> 
> Just to make sure: I also don't like the idea of having kernels in
> extras or adding a CCRMA-Kernel to core. What I fear most besides the
> maintenance nightmare: openVZ, vserver, swsusp2, reiser4 <insert 10
> other projects> would probably want their own Fedora-Kernel in that
> case, too. And I don't think we really want that ;-)

As I see it, the bigger picture here is whether to resurrect 
Alternatives or not.

If so, the kernel can be treated just like any other alternative (ie, 
core-replacing pkg).  As long as someone steps up to maintain it, I have 
no problem with alternative kernels.  As a corollary, I'd venture the 
likelihood of volunteers to be kernel maintainers to be small.

Personally, I'm in favor of the general idea of Alternatives, but if 
it's going to happen, it will require a lot of time, care and feeding, 
having it's own set of complications and a need for clear standards and 
rules.

-- Rex