kqemu is now GPLv2

[Andreas Bierfert]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:32:49 -0500
Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Thursday 08 February 2007 04:50, Andreas Bierfert wrote:
> > then again using external modules is not something we endorse
> 
> If it is not something we endorse, they should not exist _at_ _all_ in _any_ 
> official Fedora repository.

Hm well maybe endorse is not a good choice of words here. First let us set
something straight about my position on this before this just ends up as a non
constructive flame discussion:

1. I do not like out of tree kernel modules.
2. We should try everything possible to get out of tree modules upstream.
3. We should try to find a (hopefully) interim solution that allows fedora
users to use out of tree modules in an easy and user friendly way.

You agree with me in 1 and 2 you made that clear and even if a lot of packaging
folks don't say anything here or agree with you I think a lot of users do not.
Why is it so hard to start thinking of an _adequate_ way to solve this problem
where 1&2 is just one part to the solution and 3 is also part of it?

To give you one example: We all do very much dislike (avoiding the word hate)
the graphics drivers from nvidia and ati but I would guess that these two are
the among the most downloaded packages from e.g. livna because it is what
people use free or not. These are prominent non-free kmods of course.

If we would provide a way to at least give users a chance to get the free ones
via standard fedora distribution ways (like the DKMS stuff as one example) we
could eliminate one aspect that currently is missing for end users. I know that
this is can not easily be solved as the long discussions showed before even the
current kmod spec was used but if we work _together_ now to find a solution all
people could live with especially regarding bugs against fedora packages which
originate from out of tree modules.

How can we do this? I think what has been proposed so far is actually not such
a bad idea if worked on and constructively commented by people like you. How
about we taint the kernel if one of the out of tree modules is installed so it
is easy to tell in case of 'false' bug reports etc.? There are so many things
that could be done and (provided it is not in python [darn now I disqualified
myself again]) I and a lot of other people from the community (before somebody
asks community includes RH folks) would be happy to help with. I know this is
not an easy topic to talk about and sorry that I as a little unknown guy which
happens to be in FESCo finally decided to stick up for what I think is bringing
it up but I think the topic deserves more then just a Period. It not against
you nor any other RH folks it is for Fedora.

- Andreas
-- 
Andreas Bierfert               | http://awbsworld.de      | GPG: C58CF1CB
andreas.bierfert at lowlatency.de | http://lowlatency.de     | signed/encrypted
phone: +49 2402 102373         | cell: +49 173 5803043    | mail preferred
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/attachments/20070208/99b5bb03/attachment.sig>