Re: Are packages w/o necessary kernel modules allowed?
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 12:51:01AM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: Not likely. dahdi-linux support is pretty spotty. atrpms can go a long time without having a version for a specific version Fedora. For example there is no rawhide version now and there was a long period without one for F11. I uploaded some F12 builds. about a month or so before the targeted release date (which means about now). I don't think that F11 was w/o dahdi-linux kmdls for any long period. Possibly it was during the F11 rawhide period that I looked and I didn't check back for a while after the release. Unfortunately my tdm card is in my only machine at home that has 3d graphics at all working using the drivers in Fedora. And I needed to go to rawhide to get that working more than I needed to having tdm card working (though in the end I got both). Give the current packages a try, if there are issues we'll get them fixed. `recursion' warnings due to rpm's limitation of macros depth (which has nothing to do with recursion), which is at 16, but in reality means about 3-4 nested macros. Yes. But I didn't see any clear instructions for how to work around it. It seems that for some people using --define can work around the problem if you know what to define. There was also a comment that you don't see the problem because of something in your environment but I didn't see any directions on how to set up a similar environment. I use --define kmdl_kernelsrcdir /.../, that's all. But the error is still just cosmetic, if I encounter it in a manual build, the build still succeeds. What I had to do for F12 is grab a spec file (that get's updates at the source) that was proposed for rpmfusion (but never got adopted by them) and then use an svn version of dahdi that has a fix for a change in the way the kernel is being built (some compatibility feature that got dropped in 2.6.32). That box has been extra unstable lately, though I don't know if that is do to 3D graphics or dahdi-linux. Have you tried the common src.rpm at ATrpms? Maybe you should check out ATrpms in a couple of days and see whether there is dahdi support for F12 there. I tried using the dahdi-linux src rpm while having atrpms-rpm-config installed, but hit the recursion problem and got stuck there. I would still have had the problem with the last released dahdi not working with 2.6.31 kernels. But fixing that would have taken the same route as with the path I ended up taking. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net pgp1NMNcpaKTG.pgp Description: PGP signature -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Are packages w/o necessary kernel modules allowed?
Till Maas wrote: IMHO having both in RPMFusion with a proper dependency is the easiest way to install it. Having some package with a missing kernel module dependency in Fedora would only make it more complicated for other repositories that provide the kernel module and can therefore provide a package with a unbroken dependency. I agree. Putting stuff in without required dependencies is a bad practice, it's better to let other repos provide it along with the required dependency. That said, of course, there's a big can of worms there, in that we ship many things without some optional dependencies which most users will want, but which we can't legally ship. E.g. xine-lib without xine-lib-extras- freeworld, libdvdread without libdvdcss, Gnash without the codecs allowing it to actually play back Flash videos (not just pure Flash animations) etc. But some people will want the apps even without those optional features, so pushing them to the third-party repo entirely is probably a bad solution (and for libdvdcss in particular, it would mean RPM Fusion would either have to reverse its decision not to ship it or a lot of stuff would have to move back to Livna, including many programs currently in Fedora). I guess the real solution for that particular issue is to use reverse soft dependencies (Enhances), which are being discussed for future versions of RPM. But if the package does not work at all without the dependency, I really don't see what the benefit of shipping it in Fedora, as opposed to the repository containing the dependency, is. Now of course, my personal opinion is that Fedora should just allow external kernel modules again, but judging from the feedback about that question during the FESCo election campaign, I doubt I'll ever get a majority for that in FESCo. And this issue would come up anyway for proprietary kernel modules. (E.g. why is libXNVCtrl in Fedora?) Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Are packages w/o necessary kernel modules allowed?
Hello All! Imagine an application, which relies on a specific kernel module. This module is not a part of stock Fedora kernel (at least, yet), and we don't allow stand-alone kernel modules. Whether or not this package can be allowed? -- With best regards, Peter Lemenkov. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Are packages w/o necessary kernel modules allowed?
Original Message Subject: Are packages w/o necessary kernel modules allowed? From: Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com To: Development discussions related to Fedora fedora-devel-list@redhat.com Date: 14.10.2009 15:04 Hello All! Imagine an application, which relies on a specific kernel module. This module is not a part of stock Fedora kernel (at least, yet), and we don't allow stand-alone kernel modules. Whether or not this package can be allowed? If not, what does dahdi-tools do in Fedora then? Felix -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Are packages w/o necessary kernel modules allowed?
yes, I am already told this for you. for example I have user-mode-linux user space but I don't have user-mode-linux enabled in kernel. On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com wrote: Hello All! Imagine an application, which relies on a specific kernel module. This module is not a part of stock Fedora kernel (at least, yet), and we don't allow stand-alone kernel modules. Whether or not this package can be allowed? -- With best regards, Peter Lemenkov. -- Itamar Reis Peixoto e-mail/msn: ita...@ispbrasil.com.br sip: ita...@ispbrasil.com.br skype: itamarjp icq: 81053601 +55 11 4063 5033 +55 34 3221 8599 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Are packages w/o necessary kernel modules allowed?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/14/2009 09:04 AM, Peter Lemenkov wrote: Hello All! Imagine an application, which relies on a specific kernel module. This module is not a part of stock Fedora kernel (at least, yet), and we don't allow stand-alone kernel modules. Whether or not this package can be allowed? This is an interesting question. Suppose someone wrote (for example) an GPLed configuration tool for a closed-source hardware driver. Would it be permissible to include an open-source tool in the distribution, even knowing it would only ever be usable with a tainted kernel? - -- Stephen Gallagher RHCE 804006346421761 Looking to carve out IT costs? www.redhat.com/carveoutcosts/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkrVzcsACgkQeiVVYja6o6NwgwCdG10cCIr2pn+HhRWBXx+u4aB7 o8gAn0X1WOxe0Tu8Jo90V0O+cJhnTMPk =VFnY -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Are packages w/o necessary kernel modules allowed?
2009/10/14 Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com: This is an interesting question. Suppose someone wrote (for example) an GPLed configuration tool for a closed-source hardware driver. Would it be permissible to include an open-source tool in the distribution, even knowing it would only ever be usable with a tainted kernel? An example from a real life is a proprietary drivers, which sometimes has only kernel-part closed, while has opensourced userspace. -- With best regards, Peter Lemenkov. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Are packages w/o necessary kernel modules allowed?
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 8:07 AM, Felix Kaechele fe...@fetzig.org wrote: Original Message Subject: Are packages w/o necessary kernel modules allowed? From: Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com To: Development discussions related to Fedora fedora-devel-list@redhat.com Date: 14.10.2009 15:04 Imagine an application, which relies on a specific kernel module. This module is not a part of stock Fedora kernel (at least, yet), and we don't allow stand-alone kernel modules. If not, what does dahdi-tools do in Fedora then? Nothing, at least not without a kernel module that's not in the stock Fedora kernel. The DAHDI kernel modules are GPL, but Digium has been unwilling to merge them into the upstream kernel. -- Jeff Ollie -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Are packages w/o necessary kernel modules allowed?
On 10/14/2009 03:04 PM, Peter Lemenkov wrote: Hello All! Imagine an application, which relies on a specific kernel module. This module is not a part of stock Fedora kernel (at least, yet), and we don't allow stand-alone kernel modules. Whether or not this package can be allowed? IMO: no. Packages in Fedora should just work and therefore must not rely on anything which is not in Fedora. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Are packages w/o necessary kernel modules allowed?
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote: On 10/14/2009 03:04 PM, Peter Lemenkov wrote: Imagine an application, which relies on a specific kernel module. This module is not a part of stock Fedora kernel (at least, yet), and we don't allow stand-alone kernel modules. Whether or not this package can be allowed? IMO: no. Packages in Fedora should just work and therefore must not rely on anything which is not in Fedora. Which is precisely the reason why sysprof was moved to rpmfusion when kmods were banned from Fedora -- Gianluca Sforna http://morefedora.blogspot.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/gianlucasforna -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Are packages w/o necessary kernel modules allowed?
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 05:29:13PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 10/14/2009 03:04 PM, Peter Lemenkov wrote: Hello All! Imagine an application, which relies on a specific kernel module. This module is not a part of stock Fedora kernel (at least, yet), and we don't allow stand-alone kernel modules. Whether or not this package can be allowed? IMO: no. Packages in Fedora should just work and therefore must not rely on anything which is not in Fedora. Well I don't think this should be a hard and fast rule. If it was something like Firefox that needed a proprietary kernel extension, then yes that would be really bad. But a small, obscure package used to configure a specialized piece of hardware, and that comes with adequate documentation, why not let it in? # config-foo Error: This requires a non-free kernel module 'foo.ko' which can't be shipped in Fedora. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Are packages w/o necessary kernel modules allowed?
Original Message Subject: Re: Are packages w/o necessary kernel modules allowed? From: Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de To: Development discussions related to Fedora fedora-devel-list@redhat.com Date: 14.10.2009 17:29 IMO: no. Packages in Fedora should just work and therefore must not rely on anything which is not in Fedora. From the opposite POV: Why should we make peoples' lives harder getting the tools they need? Example: Somebody without the DAHDI Kernel Modules would probably not try to use the DAHDI Tools since he probably won't even know what it's good for. However It makes things easier for the people who do know what DAHDI is to have tools to use their DAHDI hardware (they compiled/got the Kernel modules for) just a yum install away. Felix -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Are packages w/o necessary kernel modules allowed?
On 10/14/2009 06:30 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 05:29:13PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 10/14/2009 03:04 PM, Peter Lemenkov wrote: Hello All! Imagine an application, which relies on a specific kernel module. This module is not a part of stock Fedora kernel (at least, yet), and we don't allow stand-alone kernel modules. Whether or not this package can be allowed? IMO: no. Packages in Fedora should just work and therefore must not rely on anything which is not in Fedora. Well I don't think this should be a hard and fast rule. Then our opions diverge: I think it should be a hard show stopper criterion. There should not be any room for any cripple ware in Fedora nor should Fedora be a stage for closed source loaders. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Are packages w/o necessary kernel modules allowed?
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 10/14/2009 06:30 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 05:29:13PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 10/14/2009 03:04 PM, Peter Lemenkov wrote: Hello All! Imagine an application, which relies on a specific kernel module. This module is not a part of stock Fedora kernel (at least, yet), and we don't allow stand-alone kernel modules. Whether or not this package can be allowed? IMO: no. Packages in Fedora should just work and therefore must not rely on anything which is not in Fedora. Well I don't think this should be a hard and fast rule. Then our opions diverge: I think it should be a hard show stopper criterion. There should not be any room for any cripple ware in Fedora nor should Fedora be a stage for closed source loaders. I think I agree. This is just like shipping a package with an intentionally missing dependency. We wouldn't allow shipping yum if rpm were missing, right? this sounds the same to me. -sv -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Are packages w/o necessary kernel modules allowed?
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 06:31:03PM +0200, Felix Kaechele wrote: From the opposite POV: Why should we make peoples' lives harder getting the tools they need? Example: Somebody without the DAHDI Kernel Modules would probably not try to use the DAHDI Tools since he probably won't even know what it's good for. However It makes things easier for the people who do know what DAHDI is to have tools to use their DAHDI hardware (they compiled/got the Kernel modules for) just a yum install away. IMHO having both in RPMFusion with a proper dependency is the easiest way to install it. Having some package with a missing kernel module dependency in Fedora would only make it more complicated for other repositories that provide the kernel module and can therefore provide a package with a unbroken dependency. Regards Till pgpgVpR0UuxiG.pgp Description: PGP signature -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Are packages w/o necessary kernel modules allowed?
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 18:31:03 +0200, Why should we make peoples' lives harder getting the tools they need? Example: Somebody without the DAHDI Kernel Modules would probably not try to use the DAHDI Tools since he probably won't even know what it's good for. However It makes things easier for the people who do know what DAHDI is to have tools to use their DAHDI hardware (they compiled/got the Kernel modules for) just a yum install away. Not likely. dahdi-linux support is pretty spotty. atrpms can go a long time without having a version for a specific version Fedora. For example there is no rawhide version now and there was a long period without one for F11. There are issues trying to rebuild atrpms src rpms on fedora. Just grabbing atrms-rpm-config doesn't help with recursion issues that Alex doesn't see because of his custom environment. What I had to do for F12 is grab a spec file (that get's updates at the source) that was proposed for rpmfusion (but never got adopted by them) and then use an svn version of dahdi that has a fix for a change in the way the kernel is being built (some compatibility feature that got dropped in 2.6.32). That box has been extra unstable lately, though I don't know if that is do to 3D graphics or dahdi-linux. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Are packages w/o necessary kernel modules allowed?
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:01:40 -0400 (EDT) Seth Vidal skvi...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Ralf Corsepius wrote: Then our opions diverge: I think it should be a hard show stopper criterion. There should not be any room for any cripple ware in Fedora nor should Fedora be a stage for closed source loaders. I think I agree. This is just like shipping a package with an intentionally missing dependency. We wouldn't allow shipping yum if rpm were missing, right? this sounds the same to me. So, how about some other cases instead of just kmods: - Client apps that are free and acceptable for fedora, but a server app that is not. EXAMPLE: mpd (in rpmfusion) and all the various mpd clients that are all in fedora. - Library app thats free, but only non free things link against it so far. EXAMPLE: libvdpau - Package that is free an interfaces with a non free server's data: EXAMPLE: dbxml-perl - Package that is free, but the kernel part of it's currently not working (although planned to be back and great work is being done on it): EXAMPLE: xen - Package that is free and acceptable for fedora, but requires a non free service to function: EXAMPLE: perl-Net-Amazon-EC2 Where does the black and white line come in here? Or is it shades of grey? kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Are packages w/o necessary kernel modules allowed?
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:01:40 -0400 (EDT) Seth Vidal skvi...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Ralf Corsepius wrote: Then our opions diverge: I think it should be a hard show stopper criterion. There should not be any room for any cripple ware in Fedora nor should Fedora be a stage for closed source loaders. I think I agree. This is just like shipping a package with an intentionally missing dependency. We wouldn't allow shipping yum if rpm were missing, right? this sounds the same to me. So, how about some other cases instead of just kmods: - Client apps that are free and acceptable for fedora, but a server app that is not. EXAMPLE: mpd (in rpmfusion) and all the various mpd clients that are all in fedora. - Library app thats free, but only non free things link against it so far. EXAMPLE: libvdpau - Package that is free an interfaces with a non free server's data: EXAMPLE: dbxml-perl - Package that is free, but the kernel part of it's currently not working (although planned to be back and great work is being done on it): EXAMPLE: xen - Package that is free and acceptable for fedora, but requires a non free service to function: EXAMPLE: perl-Net-Amazon-EC2 Where does the black and white line come in here? Or is it shades of grey? We've allowed pretty much all of the cases where you could communicate over the network to something else. but we're not talking about over-the-network communication here. -sv -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Are packages w/o necessary kernel modules allowed?
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:25:00PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 18:31:03 +0200, Why should we make peoples' lives harder getting the tools they need? Example: Somebody without the DAHDI Kernel Modules would probably not try to use the DAHDI Tools since he probably won't even know what it's good for. However It makes things easier for the people who do know what DAHDI is to have tools to use their DAHDI hardware (they compiled/got the Kernel modules for) just a yum install away. Not likely. dahdi-linux support is pretty spotty. atrpms can go a long time without having a version for a specific version Fedora. For example there is no rawhide version now and there was a long period without one for F11. Rawhide support has quite low demand and the kernel changes daily or more frequently in early rawhide, so any kernel bound support is outdated before it is released. We usually fire up the rawhide support about a month or so before the targeted release date (which means about now). I don't think that F11 was w/o dahdi-linux kmdls for any long period. There are issues trying to rebuild atrpms src rpms on fedora. Just grabbing atrms-rpm-config doesn't help with recursion issues that Alex doesn't see because of his custom environment. Who's Alex, and why doesn't atrms-rpm-config work? You may see `recursion' warnings due to rpm's limitation of macros depth (which has nothing to do with recursion), which is at 16, but in reality means about 3-4 nested macros. What I had to do for F12 is grab a spec file (that get's updates at the source) that was proposed for rpmfusion (but never got adopted by them) and then use an svn version of dahdi that has a fix for a change in the way the kernel is being built (some compatibility feature that got dropped in 2.6.32). That box has been extra unstable lately, though I don't know if that is do to 3D graphics or dahdi-linux. Have you tried the common src.rpm at ATrpms? Maybe you should check out ATrpms in a couple of days and see whether there is dahdi support for F12 there. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net pgpRRJRTbNBbo.pgp Description: PGP signature -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Are packages w/o necessary kernel modules allowed?
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 08:09:19 +0300, Axel Thimm axel.th...@atrpms.net wrote: On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:25:00PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 18:31:03 +0200, Why should we make peoples' lives harder getting the tools they need? Example: Somebody without the DAHDI Kernel Modules would probably not try to use the DAHDI Tools since he probably won't even know what it's good for. However It makes things easier for the people who do know what DAHDI is to have tools to use their DAHDI hardware (they compiled/got the Kernel modules for) just a yum install away. Not likely. dahdi-linux support is pretty spotty. atrpms can go a long time without having a version for a specific version Fedora. For example there is no rawhide version now and there was a long period without one for F11. Rawhide support has quite low demand and the kernel changes daily or more frequently in early rawhide, so any kernel bound support is outdated before it is released. We usually fire up the rawhide support Yes, but usually just rebuilding from the source rpm would work if I had an environment where I could do that. I am doing that now with the version based on a spec file from messinet.com. about a month or so before the targeted release date (which means about now). I don't think that F11 was w/o dahdi-linux kmdls for any long period. Possibly it was during the F11 rawhide period that I looked and I didn't check back for a while after the release. Unfortunately my tdm card is in my only machine at home that has 3d graphics at all working using the drivers in Fedora. And I needed to go to rawhide to get that working more than I needed to having tdm card working (though in the end I got both). There are issues trying to rebuild atrpms src rpms on fedora. Just grabbing atrms-rpm-config doesn't help with recursion issues that Alex doesn't see because of his custom environment. Who's Alex, and why doesn't atrms-rpm-config work? You may see Sorry about misspelling your name. `recursion' warnings due to rpm's limitation of macros depth (which has nothing to do with recursion), which is at 16, but in reality means about 3-4 nested macros. Yes. But I didn't see any clear instructions for how to work around it. It seems that for some people using --define can work around the problem if you know what to define. There was also a comment that you don't see the problem because of something in your environment but I didn't see any directions on how to set up a similar environment. What I had to do for F12 is grab a spec file (that get's updates at the source) that was proposed for rpmfusion (but never got adopted by them) and then use an svn version of dahdi that has a fix for a change in the way the kernel is being built (some compatibility feature that got dropped in 2.6.32). That box has been extra unstable lately, though I don't know if that is do to 3D graphics or dahdi-linux. Have you tried the common src.rpm at ATrpms? Maybe you should check out ATrpms in a couple of days and see whether there is dahdi support for F12 there. I tried using the dahdi-linux src rpm while having atrpms-rpm-config installed, but hit the recursion problem and got stuck there. I would still have had the problem with the last released dahdi not working with 2.6.31 kernels. But fixing that would have taken the same route as with the path I ended up taking. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
