On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 04:12:06PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
David Woodhouse schrieb:
>On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 09:50 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
>>Given that we don't want it on Core or Extras, I'm pretty happy to
>>let random 3rd party packager do whatever they want for packaging
>>modules. I'm not interested in dictating how they should handle
>>this ugly hack.
>>
>>Your example about ntfs is not usable w/out the userland
>>(ntfsprogs), which nobody wants to touch due to legal reasons, and
>>would be obsoleted by FUSE anyway where the most recent ntfs
>>support is done entirely in userspace.
>>
>>There are many more things the packaging committee can spend time
>>worrying about. Packaging of kernel modules isn't one of them
>>IMHO.
>
>Yeah, that's a fair point. However, it would be useful if those who
>_do_ care about kernel module packages would come to an agreement
>about how it should be done, and that can be documented somewhere
>central to Fedora -- like on the Fedora wiki.
>
>We can modify our kernel RPM and yum if appropriate in order to
>support that agreed method.
That already happend -- FESCo worked out and agreed on a propsoal last
winter
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/KernelModules
It's working fine.
No, it's not, proven in debates on fedora-packaging and here
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/AxelThimm/kmdls
The proposal you worked out is leading to broken rpm and yum
support. That's not working fine.
--
Axel.Thimm at
ATrpms.net