David Woodhouse wrote:
On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 17:17 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
I tend to say that approach is fine for you, Hans and some other
developers that are familiar with kernel-coding as those people have
shown to be able to get code upstream and know how to work with
upstream.
Yes, although I'd phrase it as "that approach is fine for anyone who
we'd actually want maintaining kernel code with the 'Fedora' name on
it".
But the code in question IMHO should show potential for a
nearby upstream merge before it's being added.
Absolutely.
But users and packagers want some modules that do not head upstream in
the near future -- let's take the lirc kernel-modules as example,
where the lirc-upstream afaik is not actively working on getting the
code into linus kernel. Nobody else is doing that either. I'd prefer
to not have stuff like that in fedora's kernel rpm, as that could soon
and in a major maintenance nightmare, which we all want to avoid
afaics.
It doesn't become any _less_ of a nightmare just because you ship it
separately. If we don't want it Fedora's kernel RPM, then we don't want
it in Fedora at all.
I must say I like this approach, it avoids the whole problem of having to
rebuild kmods all the time and of wether to delay kernel security updates until
all kmods are fixetd etc. I do think however that this might cause some pain
for Dave Jones, whose job already is hard. Maybe we should ask him what he
thinks about this?
Regards,
Hans
_______________________________________________
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
