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

Re: kernel modules/kmods/dkms (Re: Plan for tomorrows (20070906) FESCO meeting)

On Sa September 8 2007, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 11:24 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > dwmw2's proposal afaics mainly reads as "no
> > separately packaged *kernel-modules* (in source or binary form) in
> > Fedora at all"; but he uses the term "kmods" here and there (and kmod

> Indeed it was not the intention -- I used the term 'kmod' to refer to a
> generic evil. I have clarified the wording now.
> Not only do I think we shouldn't ship modules in binary form, I think we
> shouldn't be shipping them in source form as dkms payload either.

There are some open questions to how to get a new kernel module into Fedora, 
once this proposal is accepted.

Who will decide whether a new kernel module will be accepted as a patch for 
the kernel rpm? Will there be a guideline on how to add a kernel module as a 
patch to the kernel rpm? How will proposed kernel modules be reviewed / 
decided, whether or not it is good enough to be included in the kernel rpm?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

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