On 9/15/06, Jochen Schmitt <Jochen(a)herr-schmitt.de> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 18:14:51 +0530, you wrote:
> I don't understand why Fedora people don't want kernel module
>package that do not satisfy
>"A publishable explanation from the author(s) why the module is not
>merged with the mainline kernel yet and when it's planed to get
>merged. You of course can ask the author to explain it directly in the
>bug report. "
I'm not a specialist about kernel modules. But one problem of
there are the potential necessary to rebuild such packages for
each new kernel release.
And how it will be different than if same kernel module is inbuilt in
upstream kernel releases?
Its the Author who will be always releasing newer versions for his
kernel modules whenever there are kernel API changes. So may i know
what is the difference between a kernel module in upstream kernel
which will be released with kernel along with its source code changes
when some API changes in that release and external module that will be
also updated for each new release?
May be i am missing something to have complete idea about why should
we don't have kernel module packages. can you tell me?
May be i think this is the problem with Fedora kernels as we have
always having a lot of patches along with any new Fedora kernel
release and it may be difficult to maintain in that condition to make
compatible any external module.
Such rebuild may work well, but you have the potential danger,
that the API of the kernel may be changed in a way, that the
module will not work with the new kernel release. That is the
result of the 'We need no stable kernel API'-philosophy of the
There are approaches to developement tools to determinate such
changes to minimize the need of rebuilds, but I think the is not
the best solution.