[fab] kernel modules

[Greg DeKoenigsberg]

+1 to Matt's analysis here, fwiw.  Although I'm guessing you're already 
voting on it as I type this.  :)

--g

-------------------------------------------------------------
Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org
Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors
-------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Matt Domsch wrote:

> 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- at 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.
> 
> -Matt
> 
> _______________________________________________
> fedora-advisory-board mailing list
> fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
>