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

Re: [fab] Alternative kernels?



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


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