[fab] Alternative kernels?

[Rahul]

Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 14:48 -0400, Christopher Blizzard wrote:
>> Jeremy Katz wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 23:28 +0530, Rahul wrote:
>>>> So since we decided to allow kernel modules in Fedora Extras now, what 
>>>> about alternative kernels?
>>>>
>>>> The immediate need for this is a kernel with Ingo's RT patch set 
>>>> (http://people.redhat.com/mingo/realtime-preempt/) that is used by 
>>>> Planet CCRMA that we are trying to integrate into Fedora.
>>>>
>>>> We already discussed this before at 
>>>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2006-May/msg00055.html. 
>>>> A quick decision now. Yes/no?
>>> I'd say no
>> This is that classic problem that it's hard for us to manage > 1 of 
>> anything in our trees.  I suspect (but correct me if I'm wrong) that 
>> Jeremy is actually concerned about the lack of focus on the mainline 
>> kernel, or wanting to get the RT patches upstream.
> 
> If we allow arbitrary kernels that are maintained in Extras, how do we
> make sure that there's actually a consistent set of features provided?

We dont need to allow arbitrary kernels. Can we allow Planet CCRMA 
kernel or the OLPC kernel?

> And that's ignoring the questions of currency and handling of security
> errata, which is already hard enough.

Yes. A good maintainer would be required. Fortunately, in both these 
case we have one. RT patch set is being pushed very heavily upstream by 
Ingo and is expected to take a few revisions.

Rahul