kernels in the packaging universe

[Rex Dieter]

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.

-- Rex