Uttered Patrick Barnes <nman64(a)n-man.com>, spake thus:
Chidananda Jayakeerti wrote:
>Is it possible to achieve an HCL for limited set of hardware, to begin
>with. Servers and workstations can be a good start. We do not have to
>maintain an exhaustive list of webcams' keyboards, printers
>(linuxprinting does a good job) and mice etc.
>We could also have several maintainers for the HCL based on categories.
Trying, especially with a non-commercial project, to maintain any sort
of HCL is a dangerous effort. Those writing the HCL will always be
chasing the facts. Things simply change too rapidly.
Well, that may be overstating things a bit.
Consider: every X months (X=3 or so), a new FCn release is made with
a FINITE number of included device drivers. Currently we are in the
semi-ridiculous position of attempting to offer an operating system
without even an un-clear statement of what hardware that release
supports.
Now, there are actually only a handful or so of new devices added
between FC(n) and FC(n+1). After the initial effort of producing the
first:
Manufacturer,Device,(FCn version, tested date)*
list tracking the Fedora Core (only) shouldn't be that onerous a
maintanance task. The "Supported Devices" list should earn a place on
the distro CD, just as the Release Notes have done. And be just as
stable.
I dislike the HCL idea, and the HIL, because they are unbounded
activities more suitable to a personal web site than part of the FDP
which is about the differentiation of the Fedora Core releases from
other Linux projects. Thus, I think the "Got Drivers?" doc entirely
appropriate as a FDP project and the HCL/HIL more of a personal
Wiki-type effort.
In summary: HCL/HIL good project, just not authoritative to be an
FDP. Contriwise, the "Got Drivers?" listing should be part of the
product definition.
See the difference?
Cheers