On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 16:23:36 -0400
Jesse Keating <jkeating(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 15:09:13 -0500
Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)jdub.homelinux.org> wrote:
> I'm not particularly in favor of a timeout either.
Well, what about a timeout once it starts failing to compile? Or a
timeout once the maintainer is no longer interested in maintaining it
(orphan a part of the kernel...)
There is a difference in having an arbitrary timeout because something
didn't get upstreamed and having a module be orphaned. If the
maintainer is still fighting to get it upstream and it hasn't happened
yet, I see no reason to arbitrarily tell them "too bad, you didn't meet
the timeout."
However, the more I think about this the more I'm of the opinion that
they have no place in kmods or in the kernel proper. Maybe pointing
people to DKMS is a sufficient solution. If users want these modules
that bad, they'll be willing to install the toolchain to build them.
Dunno, haven't really decided yet.
josh