Re: [Fedora-packaging] Mail voting on kmdl adoption
On Fri, 2006-08-11 at 15:43 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
On Fri, 2006-08-11 at 12:58 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> d) support for coinstallation of kmdls should be pushed into FC6 asap
> (working plugin has already been submitted here and tested be
> ATrpms users). Requires a positive vote on a-c)
Rather than vote on these issues as Axel suggests (which we can
certainly do), I think that perhaps we should look at a different
approach:
Just throwing it out here, but I don't really see consensus on this
issue. People either like kmod or kmdl, and I think there are definite
pros/cons to each approach. My instinct is that if we vote on Axel's
items, they will not pass. And I don't think it is because the kmdl
standard is broken or outright wrong, I think much of it is due to the
fact that so much pain and effort went into making the kmod standard
(which works for the majority of cases) that people are honestly
unwilling to start over.
So, here's the heretical proposition:
How about we permit either kmod OR kmdl as an acceptable standard? E.g.
Document both, and let the packager choose?
I see kernel module packaging as one of the last barriers to bringing in
contributions from open source, unencumbered 3rd party repo packages.
Given the near religious nature of this debate, maybe a little
flexibility (not infinite flexibility) is merited here for the greater
good?
umm - then we'll need both plugins and it will be near impossible to
make sure they play nicely.
moreover - if a package switches owners and one likes kmod while the
previous one likes kmdl then we're kinda, umm, screwed.
the packaging committee should make a choice, go with and then it is
done.
that's the whole point of the committee.
-sv