Jarod Wilson wrote:
Hans de Goede wrote:
> Josh Boyer wrote:
>> I'd like to just do a brief poll here just to see how many are yay or
>> nay for kmods. And I'm not talking about their current implementation
>> or the other various ways that the idea can be accomplished, but rather
>> on the idea of having kernel modules as separate packages in general.
>>
>> If you're against the general idea and want to follow up with reasons
>> why that's fine. I just want to avoid implementation discussions at the
>> moment if possible.
>>
>
> I'm not sure where I stand, on one hand I would love to see something
> like the UVC driver to be in a kmod until merged upstream, to add
> support for recent webcams.
>
> OTOH, maintaining kmods and especially keeping the repo depsolving
> 100% with them may be a pain.
>
> I think that atleast we need a rule that if it isn't heading upstream,
> there need to be real good reasons to have it in Fedora, if it is
> heading upstream I think providing a kmod for a while as a service
> might be a good idea.
>
> Does anyone know for example why the lirc kernel module
Modules. There are a TON of 'em.
> has never gone upstream?
Christoph Bartelmus seemed to have very little interest in getting
things upstream, but *just* posted a "Help Wanted" email to the lirc
mailing list on the 16th. Excerpted from that:
----8<----
3. kernel module clean-up: the final goal should be a kernel
integration, but there a several fine-grain steps inbetween, like
correct usage of __init, __exit, remove all compile time dependancies,
enable support for more than one serial port at a time in lirc_serial,
remove 2.4 compatibility code, etc.
----8<----
Minor correction: Christoph said a few years back he had no problem if
someone wanted to work on integrating the drivers into the kernel, but
didn't have the time to tackle it himself.
Hm... So I may have just found a(nother) pet project...
--
Jarod Wilson
jwilson(a)redhat.com