9:12 a.m.
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.
CU
thl
10:17 a.m.
New subject: Attention kernel module project packagers!
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
10:38 a.m.
New subject: Attention kernel module project packagers!
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 04:12:06PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> 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...
Thorsten, Axel,
In the hopes of furthering the discussion can we at least agree that the
current kmod scheme works, at least to some people's perception of what
that means. I hope, also, that we can agree that the current kmod
scheme does have limitations/shortcomings.
With that in mind, I think this (should) all boil down to the question:
which weighs more heavily in your mind, the pain/suffering(*) of involved in
1. Adopting/changing-to a new (kmdl) standard
2. living with the limitations/shortcomings that come with using kmod.
?
(*) Which brought to my mind one of my favorite movie quotes:
"Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something."
-- Rex
11:11 a.m.
New subject: Attention kernel module project packagers!
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 11:38, Rex Dieter wrote:
With that in mind, I think this (should) all boil down to the
question:
which weighs more heavily in your mind, the pain/suffering(*) of involved
in 1. Adopting/changing-to a new (kmdl) standard
2. living with the limitations/shortcomings that come with using kmod.
?
3. Kicking kernel module packages out of Core / Extras and moving the debate
away from us so that we can focus on the more important things. I vote for
#3.
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
12:28 p.m.
New subject: Attention kernel module project packagers!
>>>> "RD" == Rex Dieter
<rdieter(a)math.unl.edu> writes:
RD> In the hopes of furthering the discussion can we at least agree
RD> that the current kmod scheme works, at least to some people's
RD> perception of what that means. I hope, also, that we can agree
RD> that the current kmod scheme does have limitations/shortcomings.
RD> With that in mind, I think this (should) all boil down to the
RD> question: which weighs more heavily in your mind, the
RD> pain/suffering(*) of involved in 1. Adopting/changing-to a new
RD> (kmdl) standard 2. living with the limitations/shortcomings that
RD> come with using kmod. ?
Would the same problems that we have with kernel modules appear with
e.g. apache modules, if having two different apache versions installed
was possible?
/Benny
12:33 p.m.
New subject: Attention kernel module project packagers!
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 13:28, Benny Amorsen wrote:
Would the same problems that we have with kernel modules appear with
e.g. apache modules, if having two different apache versions installed
was possible?
Theoretically yes, however thankfully we don't really let two different
apaches be installed.
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
4:42 p.m.
New subject: Attention kernel module project packagers!
Jesse Keating wrote:
3. Kicking kernel module packages out of Core / Extras and moving the
debate
away from us so that we can focus on the more important things. I vote for
#3.
This one has come out of left-field to me. Nobody AFAIK has previously
proposed throwing out kernel modules altogether. I also don't think it
makes sense because, notwithstanding the RPM problems, there are plenty
of useful kernel modules that exist and are maintained (for various
reasons, good or bad, right or wrong) outside the kernel tree. I don't
see why kernel modules are any less useful than other random FE
packages, just because they're in kernel space. FE is supposed to be a
maximal set of software, right? That's at odds with a rule disallowing
any kernel modules. Why shouldn't kernel modules be included, exactly?
Excluding them just because of the problems with packaging seems rather
like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
FWIW, although the kmod stuff seems "nicer" in a way, I've been
relatively convinced by what Axel has had to say about kmdl. They're
both trying to make the best of a bad job; kmdl seems to have slightly
fewer problems.
And for those that say RHEL is nothing to do with Fedora: true
theoretically, but if you look at:
a) the number of Fedora devs who are RH employees
b) the number of Fedora users who also use/build packages for RHEL and
derivatives either for work, fun or both
then I think it's worth at least *considering* the potential
annoyance/confusion of RHEL/Fedora having two different schemes.
Regardless of the outcome I'd like to thank Axel in particular and all
the other contributors to the debate so far for their time and energy. I
don't think anyone finds this stuff terribly exciting as I think we'd
all rather be *using* packages than debating the finer details of which
packaging scheme is better than another, but this stuff is important in
the big picture both of getting the best technical solution and making
Fedora the best distro with a wide choice of well-packaged software.
Whilst we shouldn't pander to any special interest, I do believe it's in
all our interests to at least pay serious attention to the input from
well-established third party contributors like Axel who have done so
much in the past few years to bring a large base of add-on software to
RHL/RHEL/Fedora. They have very useful practical experience of various
techniques applied to a relatively large audience and this knowledge
(and established packages) can only benefit Fedora.
Tim
5:03 p.m.
New subject: Attention kernel module project packagers!
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 17:42, Tim Jackson wrote:
This one has come out of left-field to me. Nobody AFAIK has
previously
proposed throwing out kernel modules altogether.
David Woodhouse proposed it weeks ago. I've gotten tired enough of this
discussion and noticed the ways that BOTH methods suck arse that I'm inclined
to agree with David that packaging of kernel modules is just not something an
RPM based distro is capable of handling in a clean way. There are more
philosophical reasons to not allow kernel modules, but I go into that.
I also don't think it
makes sense because, notwithstanding the RPM problems, there are plenty
of useful kernel modules that exist and are maintained (for various
reasons, good or bad, right or wrong) outside the kernel tree.
This doesn't mean there are room for them in the Fedora project. Bad reasons
should be fixed. Good reasons (like illegal to be in kernel or closed
source) are unacceptable for the Fedora project. Once free, always free.
I don't
see why kernel modules are any less useful than other random FE
packages, just because they're in kernel space. FE is supposed to be a
maximal set of software, right?
No, a maximal set of ACCEPTABLE and non-forbidden software that can be
maintained. There are "useful" things that aren't acceptable. Certain
encryption methods due to US restrictions on the exporting of them.
Emulators are not acceptable. Some forms of content are not allowed either:
*
Comic book art files
*
Religious texts
*
mp3 files (patent encumbered)
That's at odds with a rule disallowing
any kernel modules. Why shouldn't kernel modules be included, exactly?
Excluding them just because of the problems with packaging seems rather
like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Technical reasons: By nature they always lag. They will prevent a user from
being able to update to new kernels, which could prevent them from getting
critical security fixes. Without hand deselecting packages for updates, this
could also prevent ANY updates from being applied. Worse, the updates (and
new kernel) could be installed and the module would not be available,
preventing the system from functioning.
Supportability. External modules can and do introduce bugs into the running
kernel. They can have adverse but hard to realize problems in a running
system. The kernel gets the blame, and bugzilla gets overrun with false
reports that have nothing to do with the kernel rpm, and everything to do
with the addon module. Expecting the kernel maintainer to sort these out and
triage takes away from his/her precious time.
These are a couple really good reasons in my book to not allow it.
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
6:14 p.m.
New subject: Attention kernel module project packagers!
On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 18:03 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
No, a maximal set of ACCEPTABLE and non-forbidden software that can be
maintained. There are "useful" things that aren't acceptable. Certain
encryption methods due to US restrictions on the exporting of them.
Emulators are not acceptable. Some forms of content are not allowed either:
*
Comic book art files
*
Religious texts
Doesn't FE have sword & gnomesword in it? Based on it's description it sounds
like
it contains religious text.
/B
--
Brian Pepple <bpepple(a)fedoraproject.org>
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E
BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
4:20 a.m.
New subject: Attention kernel module project packagers!
On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 19:14 -0400, Brian Pepple wrote:
On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 18:03 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
>
> No, a maximal set of ACCEPTABLE and non-forbidden software that can be
> maintained. There are "useful" things that aren't acceptable.
Certain
> encryption methods due to US restrictions on the exporting of them.
> Emulators are not acceptable. Some forms of content are not allowed either:
>
> *
>
> Comic book art files
> *
>
> Religious texts
Doesn't FE have sword & gnomesword in it? Based on it's description it
sounds like
it contains religious text.
... And these had been an issue when they had been
under review.
Ralf
9:18 a.m.
New subject: Forbidden software in FE
On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 11:20 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 19:14 -0400, Brian Pepple wrote:
>
> Doesn't FE have sword & gnomesword in it? Based on it's description it
sounds like
> it contains religious text.
... And these had been an issue when they had been under review.
Yeah, looks like this was approved for FE back when we were doing
reviews on the mailing list. Do these packages need to be looked at
again to make sure that they should be in FE? I actually haven't used
them, so I'm not sure if they actually contain forbidden content.
/B
--
Brian Pepple <bpepple(a)fedoraproject.org>
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E
BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
6470
days inactive
6471
days old
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
11 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
Axel Thimm -
Benny Amorsen -
Brian Pepple -
Jesse Keating -
José Abílio Matos -
Ralf Corsepius -
Rex Dieter -
Thorsten Leemhuis -
Tim Jackson