On Fri, 29 May 2009, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 03:33:37PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Josh Boyer wrote:
>> Or perhaps a future FESCo will revist kmods.
>
> FWIW, I'd certainly vote for a proposal to allow kmods if I get into FESCo
> and may even bring such a proposal in front of the new FESCo (though IMHO
> it should not be the old regime with explicit FESCo approval for each, that
> didn't make any sense, instead there should be no restrictions other than a
> license compatible with that of the kernel, and of course the restrictions
> applying to all packages).
Could someone dispassionately summarise the reasons why kmods were
rejected in the first place? I assume the reason was the overhead of
maintaining and updating out-of-tree kernel patches?
1. out-of-tree kernel modules should not be encouraged - if it can't be in
the upstream kernel then why are we including it in fedora?
2. the behavior for multiply-installed kernels and kernel modules with
updates is not-wonderful
3. kernels being released into a repo and the kernel-modules not being
caught up plays hell w/proper updates
-sv