kernels in the packaging universe

[seth vidal]

On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 13:43 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 02:06:39PM -0500, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote:
> > 
> >  > To the best of my knowledge, the problem you have with kmods/alternate 
> >  > kernels is that people complain when they break, and they fill bugzilla 
> >  > with bugs that don't make sense -- because people don't understand that 
> >  > they're running funky kernels.
> >  > 
> >  > Right?  Are there any other reasons not to package these alternate 
> >  > kernels?
> >  > 
> >  > Because that's a valid reason.  But it also gives us something to shoot 
> >  > for: better reporting tools.
> > 
> > The bugzilla issue is the #1 reason.
> > I don't want to do another round-trip in bugzilla where I have to ask..
> > 
> > "Now try and repeat this issue without kmod-blah loaded".
> 
> Personally, I consider this more of a bug triaging failure.  kernel bugs 
> should only be accepted/allowed *only* if from verifiably taint-free 
> kernels.  Everything else -> closed/INVALID.
> 

but a gpl kernel module won't taint.

-sv