Possibly to leave it would create a support ambiguity. If something is broken, is that because of the kernel module or the userland tools? If there is no kernel module, then anything to do with that hardware becomes by default not a RedHat issue.
On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 16:09 +0100, Grant Williamson wrote: > Tim, > why do you then remove the kernel module? Is it not possible to just > leave the kernel module there, and let users decide themselves whether > they want to use it or not? > > Tim Burke wrote: > > Correct. We had to remove the regulatory daemon because it is not > > open source and hence conflicts with our inclusion policy. > > > > Grant Williamson wrote: > >> Axel, I agree, but I just want to hear the answer from redhat. > >> > >> Axel Thimm wrote: > >>> On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 07:36:43PM +0100, Grant Williamson wrote: > >>> > >>>> Up until the 2.6.18-1.2739.el5 kernel ipw3945 was included in the > >>>> redhat kernels. Redhat have removed it from the 2.6.18-1.2740.el5 > >>>> kernel, I would really like to know why? > >>>> > >>> > >>> My best guess is that Red Hat removes everything they cannot fix in a > >>> 3rd level support scenario, for example everything for which you need > >>> closed source bits and that's the case with the required regulatory > >>> daemon for ipw3945. > >>> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rhelv5-beta-list mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list > > > > _______________________________________________ > rhelv5-beta-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list _______________________________________________ rhelv5-beta-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list
