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

Re: [fab] kernel modules

On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 03:10:09PM -0400, Max Spevack wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 09:32 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> >>- kernel modules outside of the kernel package in Fedora. Vote yes or no
> >>so we can move on.
> >
> >This one has been asked about on the list about 4 times now.  Would be
> >very good to get an answer.
> The prevailing sentiment is that the engineers most directly impacted by 
> the decision are not in favor of kernel modules, and I think we need to 
> trust the technical expertise of the people who will be doing the work.
> Therefore, if I had to lay down an opinion, I would say that if Dave Jones 
> (et al) are opposed to kernel modules, then we need to say no.
> Additionally, if there is a belief that kernel modules would be a Good 
> Thing but we are forced to say no for various reasons (like bug triage as 
> an example) then we need to identify those reasons and act to resolve 
> them, so that we can revisit the issue at a later date, with the answer 
> being "no" until we are ready for it to be "yes".

Do Kernel Modules in Core make any sense?  No - they belong in the
kernel package.

Do Kernel Modules in Extras make sense?  Maybe.  I'd *much* prefer to
say No here, and tell the module developers / Extras maintainer to
work with upstream to get it in.  However, that takes time (as I
learned first-hand getting the ppp_mppe module into the kernel and out
of a 3rd party hosted site), during which time end users won't get the
functionality at all, or must look elsewhere.  The tradeoff to saying
"Yes" here is that all Extras kernel module packagers then need to
help triage and resolve kernel bugs.  It's cleaner for the end users
if we do this work.  It's extra responsibility for the kernel module
packagers, but that's only appropriate.

This also helps us move away from the Core vs Extras contributors
distinction, if we can get non- redhat com people assisting with
kernel bug triage and development.  If FESCo agrees to include a
particular module, then there needs to be enough of a
developer/support cabal for it through the life of the release.
Fire-and-forget kernel module packagers will suck the life out of
this, and force the answer to "no".

Do Kernel Modules in Fedora plus Other Free Stuff make sense?  Yes, in
support of the Other Free Stuff (thinking here about CCRMA and the
like).  I don't want to force people to diverge too far from the
Fedora-provided packages in Core and Extras to enable novel
functionality like this which may impact Core in ways Core doesn't
want to go or isn't ready to go.

Do Kernel Modules in $something-not-free make sense?   Yes, and the
FPB has no control over those anyhow.  The common packaging guidelines
go a ways towards helping this.

I'll vote yes.


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