Kernel Module Packaging

[Parag Nemade]

Hi,
    I am planning to submit kernel module packages which are not in
mainstream kernel yet. May i know what guidelines should i follow? Do
Fedora Packaging people confirmed on any kernel module packaging
guidelines? I saw already many packages waiting for review in FE and
yet no progress for them. why so?
   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.   "
  How then ubuntu/debian distribution got them included in their OS? I
saw many peoples claiming on IRC channels that they got many kernel
module packages from their distro only and enjoying their usage then
why Fedora is having objection on those waiting FE review packages?

  BTW is kmdl approach accepted or not? If not then should we let new
kernel modules submissions according to kmod approach?

Regards,
Parag.

[Jochen Schmitt]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

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.

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
kernel hackers

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.

Best Regards:

Jochen Schmitt

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGP Desktop 9.0.2 (Build 2424)
>
> iQA/AwUBRQmyrk9gByurcX4MEQIWOACfby5ecqMu2hirSn6SlHQGGE5FulIAn1/B
> WDYOhBnnfLkxIdPetBU0CDsO
> =lPBo
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Parag Nemade]

Hi,
On 9/15/06, Jochen Schmitt <Jochen(a)herr-schmitt.de&gt; wrote:
>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA1
>
>  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
>  kernel hackers
>
>  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.
>  
Regards,
Parag.

[Rex Dieter]

Parag N(पराग़) 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.   " 
Because one of Fedora's Objectives(1) is:
* To do as much of the development work as possible directly in the 
upstream packages.

In short, if the kernel module isn't good enough for the upstream 
kernel, it's not good enough for Fedora either.

-- Rex

(1) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives

[Michael J. Knox]

Rex Dieter wrote:
>  Parag N(पराग़) 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.   "
>
>  Because one of Fedora's Objectives(1) is:
>  * To do as much of the development work as possible directly in the
>  upstream packages.
>
>  In short, if the kernel module isn't good enough for the upstream
>  kernel, it's not good enough for Fedora either. 
I don't mean to sound like I am baiting, but I do find that an interesting
"objective" in light of recent xorg 7.1 "dramas"....

Maybe I have missed a large portion of the discussions...

Michael

[Parag Nemade]

Hi Rex,
On 9/15/06, Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu&gt; wrote:
>  Parag N(पराग़) 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.   "
>
>  Because one of Fedora's Objectives(1) is:
>  * To do as much of the development work as possible directly in the
>  upstream packages.
>
>  In short, if the kernel module isn't good enough for the upstream
>  kernel, it's not good enough for Fedora either. 
     It looks to me that everybody want to stick with the Fedora
Objectives whatever it has been decided but don't want to comment at
all regarding kernel module packaging guidelines.
     So i assume that we will no longer be in decision to build any
kernel modules packages for Fedora OS right? Because for same reason
no progress i can find for kernel module packages with their status as
FE-NEW.
Regards,
Parag.

[Rex Dieter]

Parag N(पराग़) wrote:

>  ... i assume that we will no longer be in decision to build any
>  kernel modules packages for Fedora OS right?  
This is an incorrect assumption.

-- Rex

[Parag Nemade]

Hi,
On 9/15/06, Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu&gt; wrote:
>  Parag N(पराग़) wrote:
>
>  > ... i assume that we will no longer be in decision to build any
>  > kernel modules packages for Fedora OS right?
>
>  This is an incorrect assumption. 
  OK. Then how long i need to wait to get the kernel module guidelines
to create kernel module packages?
Regards,
Parag.

[Rex Dieter]

Parag N(पराग़) wrote:
>  Hi,
>  On 9/15/06, Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu&gt; wrote:
> > Parag N(पराग़) wrote:
> >
> > > ... i assume that we will no longer be in decision to build any
> > > kernel modules packages for Fedora OS right?
> >
> > This is an incorrect assumption.
>  
>   OK. Then how long i need to wait to get the kernel module guidelines
>  to create kernel module packages? 
A quick text search for 'kmod' turned up:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/KernelModules

This is probably what you're looking for.

-- Rex

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Hi!

Parag N(पराग़) schrieb:
>      I am planning to submit kernel module packages which are not in
>  mainstream kernel yet. May i know what guidelines should i follow? 
As some poeple pointed out already: Use
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/KernelModules

>  I saw already many packages waiting for review in FE and
>  yet no progress for them. why so? 
Seems no reviewer really wants to touch them :-/ And there was a
discussion on FAB if we should generally (dis)allow kernel module
packages in Extras. There was no real decision on this yet afaik -- the
next meeting where this probably finally will be discussed is next
Tuesday afaik. That's probably one of the reasons why kmod-packages are
on hold slightly.

>     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.   " 
That's more a political hurdle we installed on purpose.

The reasons behind this are not quickly answered. In short: Kernel
modules belong into the kernel, that easier for users, developers and
packagers. And we want to make sure they get there.

[...]

CU
thl